27th  Congress, 
2d  Session. 


Sep.  Xo.  1065. 


Ho.  of  Reps. 


FINISHING  AND  FURNISHING  THE  NEW  CUSTOM-HOUSE, 

NEW  YORK. 

August  25,  1842.  \^ 

Read,  and  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Richard  W.  Thompson,  from  the  Select  Committee  to  which  the 
subject  had  been  referred,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT : 

The  Select  Committee  appointed  by  resolution  of  the  House,  adopted  07i 
the  13th  May,  to  inquire  into  all  the  circumstances  attending  the  fin- 
ishing and  furnishing  the  New  York  custom-house,  and  to  ascertain 
how  much  is  justly  clue,  and  to  whom,  for  work  done  and  materials 
provided  since  the  3d  day  of  March,  1S41,  and  by  what  authority 
such  debt  was  contracted,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report  : 

The  conviction  entertained  by  the  committee,  that  the  character  of  the 
matters  referred  to  them  demanded  the  most  deliberate  care  and  reflec- 
tion, and  that  their  examination  should  be  sufficiently  extended  to  devel- 
op "  all  the  circumstances  attending  the  finishing  and  furnishing  the 
New  York  custom-house,"  which  have  recently  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  House  and  the  country,  induced  them,  with  entire  unanimity,  to  ask 
of  the  House  leave  to  proceed  to  the  city  of  New  York,  where  they  be- 
lieved, within  a  few  days,  more  efficient  labor  might  have  been  performed 
than  in  as  ntany  months  here.  This,  however,  was  refused  them  by  the 
House,  and  they  have  consequently  found  themselves  encompassed  with 
difficulties  at  every  step  of  their  investigation.  The  imperfections,  there- 
fore, which  may  be  found  to  occur  in  their  examination,  will  be  properly 
appreciated  and  understood. 

While  they  have  not  professed  to  confine  themselves  to  the  rigors  of  a 
strictly  legal  examination,  they  have  not  lost  sight  of  the  interests  either 
of  the  Government  or  of  individuals  ;  and  if,  in  any  instance,  they  have 
lost  sight  of  either,  it  has  been  a  result  which  could  not  possibly  be 
avoided,  arising  chiefly,  perhaps,  from  the  conflict  in  the  testimony,  and 
the  difficulty  of  interpreting  the  motives  of  individuals,  when  concealed 
with  caution  and  ingenuity.  All  their  results  and  all  their  conclusions, 
however,  have  been  unanimous,  and  have  been  arrived  at  with  great 
labor  and  investigation,  and  after  much  consumption  of  time. 

The  first  intimation  that  the  records  of  the  Treasury  Department  furnish 
of  a  desire,  upon  the  part  of  the  collector,  to  procure  new  furniture  for 
the  custom-house,  is  on  the  12th  of  September,  1840,  (A,)  when  Mr.  Hoyt 
wrote  to  Mr.  Woodbury  as  follows  :  "  I  am  reminded  to  ask  you  from 
what  fund  axe  the  expenses  to  be  paid  fox  furnishing  the  new  building: 


2 


Hep.  No.  1065. 


with  what  furniture  may  be  required ?  Are  they  to  be  paid  by  the  com- 
missioner, or  are  they  to  be  charged  to  any  other  and  what  account  ?" 
"  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  proper  charge  for  the  construction,  and  to  be 
paid  from  the  appropriation." 

In  answer  to  this  Mr.  Woodbury  says,  in  a  letter  of  the  14th  September, 
1S40,  (B,)  that,  "With  respect  to  the  furniture  required  for  the  other 
portions  of  the  building,  no  expenses  can  be  incurred  without  a  special 
appropriation  having  first  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose,  or 
unless  the  officers  who  occupy  the  rooms  should  think  proper  to  defray 
such  expenses  out  of  their  emoluments.  It  will,  in  any  other  event,  be- 
come necessary  to  use  the  old  furniture  now  in  the  custom-house." 

Oil  the  10th  November,  1840,  (C,)  Iloyt  wrote  again  to  the  Secretary. 
He  said  :  "  I  suggest  that  you  ask  Congress  for  an  appropriation  to  pur- 
chase furniture  for  the  building,''  &c. ;  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  it 
would  "require  from  five  to  seven  thousand  dollars,  in  addition  to  the 
furniture  we  now  have  that  could  be  used,  to  jit  up  all  the  rooms.,} 

"  Mr.  Frazee  is  of  opinion  that  a  larger  sum  would  be  required  than  I 
have  named,  and  his  judgment  probably  is  better  than  mine  in  that  mat- 
ter. He  thinks  none  of  the  old  furniture  is  iit  to  be  used,  but  I  differ  in 
opinion  with  him  on  that  question." 

In  reply  to  this  letter,  Mr.  Woodbury,  on  the  13th  of  November,  (D,) 
said  that  he  would  "be  happy  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  consideration 
of  the  appropriate  committee  at  the  meeting  of  Congress."  He  required, 
however,  that,  in  the  mean  time,  u  Mr.  Frazee  should  furnish  the  Depart- 
ment with  a  detailed  estimate  of  the  amount  of  money  required  for  the 
object  stated,  to  be  laid  before  the  committee." 

On  the  12th  of  December,  1841,  (E,)  and  after  the  commencement  of 
the  session  of  Congress,  Mr.  Hoyt  enclosed  to  the  Secretary,  in  answer  to 
his  letter  of  the  13th  of  November,  a  letter  from  Frazee  to  himself,  dated 
the  10th  December,  (F.)  accompanied  by  an  estimate  of  the  entire  cost  of 
the  furniture,  made  by  John  Horspool,  which  amounted  to  S18.953  (G.) 
In  this  letter  Mr.  Hoyt  says:  "I  still  think  that  £15,000  would  be  suf- 
ficient. I  do  not  concur  with  Mr.  Frazee  in  the  opinion  expressed  by  him, 
that  but  little  of  the  old  furniture  can  be  used  ;  I  think  it  w|  answer  for 
the  smaller  rooms  in  the  second  and  third  stories." 

Mr.  Frazee,  in  his  letter,  says  that,  "  to  cover  the  entire  cost  of  all  the 
furniture  required  to  furnish  every  department  of  the  revenue  busi- 
ness complete,  you  will  want  an  appropriation  of  at  least  £20,000."  And 
he  recommends  that  the  work  be  ordered  in  advance  of  or  in  anticipation 
of  the  necessary  appropriations,  as  "such  has  been  the  case  in  relation 
to  other  work  about  the  building." 

Thus  stood  the  facts  when  they  were  submitted  by  Mr.  Woodbury  to 
Congress  ;  and  it  is  presumed  that  the  House  of  Representatives  was  suf- 
ficiently advised  of  them,  when,  on  the  24th  February,  1841,  it  was 
brought  to  a  vote  upon  this  appropriation.  On  that  day  the  amendment 
made  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropriation 
bill,  appropriating  "for  furniture  for  the  custom-house,  New  York,  eight- 
thousand  dollars,"  came  up  in  the  House,  upon  the  question  of  concur- 
rence, and  it  was  lost  by  a  majority  of  twenty-five  votes.  ' 

During  the  progress  of  these  events,  a  difficulty  had  grown  up  between 
Mr.  Hoyt  and  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  who  was  at  that  time  the  commis- 
sioner, in  regard  to  the  mode  of  finishing  the  building.    In  consequence 


Rep.  No.  1065.  3 

of  this  difficulty,  Mr.  Bowne  had,  on  the  5th  December,  1840,  dismissed 
•  Mr.  Frazee  from  his  office  of  superintendent  ;  so  that,  when  he  wrote  his 
letter  of  10th  December  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  accompanied  by  Horspool's  esti- 
mates, he  had  not  the  superintendence  of  the  building. 

On  the  17th  of  February,  1841,  (H,)  Mr.  Woodbury  referred  these  mat- 
ters of  dispute  to  William  S.  Coe,  Esq.,  naval  officer  at  New  York,  for 
adjustment ;  but  the  sickness  of  this  gentleman  caused  him,  on  the  22d  of 
February,  (I.)  to  refer  them  to  G.  W.  Coe,  Esq.,  deputy  naval  officer, 
to  Ely  Moore,  Esq.,  surveyor.  These  gentlemen  reported  on  the  2\ 
February,  (J,)  sustaining  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  pronouncing  the  dismissal  of  Mi 
Frazee  as  "an  act  of  gross  injustice."  In  their  report  they  say:  "In 
reference  to  the  furniture,  we  would  state,  that,  as  the  counters,  which 
are  already  put  up  in  several  of  the  rooms,  however  objectionable  they 
may  be,  are  only  intended  for  temporary  use  until  suitable  furniture  can 
be  made,  we  forbear  making  any  particular  remarks  on  this  part  of  the 
subject.  We  would  observe,  however,  that,  the  design  and  planning  of 
the  new  furniture,  agreeably  to  the  economy  and  arrangement  which  may 
be  suggested  by  the  officers  of  the  various  departments,  are  things  which 
should,  in  our  judgment,  command  the  taste,  skill,  and  superintendence  of 
the  architect  of  the  edifice,  and  that  he  also  be  permitted  to  select  the 
mechanics  who  are  to  execute  and  put  up  this  kind  of  work." 

The  committee  have  thus  laid  before  the  House  a  full  statement  of  the 
facts  upon  which  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  of  3d  ot'  March,  1S41,  (K,) 
to  Mr.  Bowne,  was  predicated,  that  the  object  and  intention  of  that  letter 
may  be  understood,  for  a  very  material  portion  of  the  inquiry  submitted 
to  them  turns  upon  the  interpretation  of  its  language.  In  speaking  of 
the  recommendations  contained  in  the  report  of  the  deputy  naval  officer 
and  surveyor,  it  says :  "  In  accordance  wi$h  their  recommendation,  I 
deem  it  proper  to  authorize  Mr.  John  Frazee  to  be  continued  in  the  sit- 
uation of  superintendent  and  architect  of  the  bnilding,/W??>?  the  date  of  the 
passage  of  the  general  appropriation  bill,  until  the  custom-house,  and  the 
furnishing  of  the  respective  rooms,  shall  have  been  completed;  and  it  is 
desirable  that  Mr.  Frazee's  plan  for  the  interior  arrangements  of  the 
building  should  be  carried  into  effect,  so  far  as  regards  the  arrangements 
of  the  fly -doors,  furniture,  and  painting  of  the  iron  work" 

Could  Mr.  Woodbury  have  intended  this  letter  as  authority  for  the  ex- 
penditure of  money  to  procure  furniture  ?  The  committee  can  find  in  it  no 
language  capable  of  such  construction.  Standing  alone,  it  certainly  con- 
veys no  such  meaning ;  but,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  his  previous 
correspondence  with  Mr.  Hoyt,  there  is  no  possible  apology  for  so  inter- 
preting it.  In  his  letter  of  September  14  he  had  expressly  told  the  collect- 
or "  that  no  expense  can  be  incurred  without  a  special  appropriation  hav- 
first  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose;"  and  he  had  subsequently 
laid  before  Congress  an  estimate  for  such  appropriations,  which  failed  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  With  a  knowledge  of  this  failure,  it  is  not 
probable  that  he  would  have  been  reconciled  to  do  that  which  before  he 
had  refused.  The  committee  are  clearly  of  opinion  that  not  a  word  is  to 
be  found  in  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Woodbury  justifying  the  expendi- 
ture of  a  single  dollar  for  furniture,  or  looking  to  any  thing  else  for  that 
purpose  than  an  appropriation  by  Congress.  This  letter  contemplates  the 
continuance  of  Frazee  in  office  "  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  general 
appropriation  bill."    Why  consider  his  services  as  requisite  from  this  time, 


/ 

4  Rep.  No.  1065. 

unless  be  had  looked  alone  to  the  expenditure  of  money  embraced  in  that 
bill?  That  bill  appropriated  other  money  for  the  custom-house;  and  it 
was  for  the  purpose  of  superintending  the  expenditure  of  this  amount  that 
he  restored  him  to  office.  The  restoration  looked  to  this  alone,  and  not  to 
the  furniture.  He  was  to  continue  in  office  *  until  the  custom-house, 
and  the  furnishing  of  the  respective  rooms,  shall  have  been  completed." 
How  completed  ?  By  appropriations  by  Congress  ;  for  he  had  already  de- 
clared that  no  furniture  should  be  purchased  in  any  other  way. 

The  "plan"  of  Mr.  Frazee,  "for  the  interior  arrangement  of  the  build- 
ing" was  to  be  carried  into  effect,  so  far  as  regards  the  arrangements  of 
the  fly-doors,  furniture,  and  painting  of  the  iron  work."  How  and  when 
to  be  carried  into  effect  ?  Certainly  not  without  an  appropriation  made  by 
Congress.  This  whole  sentence  is,  so  far  as  the  Secretary  had  the  power, 
a  mere  approval  of  K razee's  "plan  for  the  arrangements  of  the  fly-doors, 
furniture,  and  painting  of  the  iron  work."  'It  goes  no  further,  and  em- 
braces nothing  else.  It  is  by  no  means  ambiguous  or  uncertain.  It  simply 
and  plainly  means  that,  whenever  an  appropriation  is  made  by  Congress, 
the  "  plan"  and  "  arrangements"  of  Frazee  are  adopted  by  the  Secretary, 
for  the  "  fly-doors,  furniture,  and  painting  of  the  ironwork."  The  esti- 
mate of  Horspool  had  been  made  under  the  direction  of  Frazee,  and  it 
contemplated  certain  furniture  for  each  department  of  the  building.  The 
"  arrangements"  of  this  plan  Mr.  Woodbury  intended  to  approve. 

This  was  the  condition  of  things  when  Mr.  Ewing  came  into  office.  On 
the  19th  of  March,  1841,  it  was  announced,  in  the  National  Intelligencer, 
that  Edward  Curtis,  the  present  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  was 
appointed  to  that  office.  It  is  believed  that  lie  did  not  enter  on  the  duties 
of  his  station  until  the  23d  or  24th  of  the  month.  On  the  25th  of  March, 
(L,)  before  he  had  been  thrct  days  in  office,  he  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  that  "there  was  a  long-continued  controversy  between  John 
Frazee,  architect  of  the  new  custom-house,  and  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  the 
acting  commissioner.  The  late  Secretary,  after  much  inquiry  and  exam- 
ination, decided  that  Mr.  Frazee  should  go  on  to  finish  the  custom-house, 
and  furnish  it  in  his  own  toc/y,  and  without  the  interference  of  Mr.  Bowne, 
who  differs  in  opinion  with  the  architect."  The  committee  have  searched 
writh  much  care  for  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  from  which  this  autho 
for  Frazee  to  "  go  on  to  finish  the  custom-house,  and  furnish  it  in  his  own 
tvay,"  is  derived.  They  have  not  found  it,  and  believe  that  none  such 
exists.  They  have  already  shown  that  his  letter  of  the  3d  of  March  could 
not  be  warped  into  this  construction.  From  whence,  then,  did  Mr.  Curtis 
derive  authority  for  this  declaration  ?  The  committee  are  at  a  loss  to  know. 
He  must  have  been  conversant  with  the  manner  in  which  the  dispute  be- 
tween Hoyt  and  Bowne  had  been  reconciled,  for  he  speaks  of  the  result 
in  his  letter  of  the  25th  of  March.  He  therefore  knew  the  state  of  facts 
upon  which  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter  of  the  3d  of  March  was  predicated. 
He  had,  besides,  been  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  when  the 
proposition  had  failed,  on  the  24th  of  February,  only  one  month  before, 
to  appropriate  only  $S,000  to  this  work,  and  had  himself  voted  with  the 
minority.  He  knew  all  the  facts.  In  view,  therefore,  of  all  these  things, 
the  committee  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  Mr.  Curtis,  by  his  letter  of 
the  25th  of  March,  1842,  intended  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  in  order  to  obtain,  by  his  assent,  the  expenditure  of  money 


Eep.  No.  1065.  5 

which  he  knew  Congress  had  refused  but  a  month  before  !  How  this  can 
be  reconciled  with  a  conscientious  discharge  of  his  obligations  as  a  public 
officer,  the  committee  leave  to  the  House  and  the  country  to  determine. 

This  letter  of  Mr.  Curtis  was  answered  by  Mr.  Ewing  on  the  2d  of 
April,  1S42,  (M,)  at  which  time  he  enclosed  to  him  the  schedule  and  estimate 
that  had  been  previously  made  by  Horspool.  In  his  answer  he  said  :  "  It 
is  desirable  that  you  should  carefully  examine  the  subject,  and,  if  neces- 
sary, advise  with  some  person  familiar  with  such  matters,  with  the  view 
of  determining  whether  all  the  articles  specified  will  be  absolutely  requir- 
ed, and  also  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  prices  affixed  to  them." 

"I  wish  you,  moreover,  to  ascertain  whether  some  of  the  old  furniture 
cannot  be  used,  as  suggested  in  Mr.  Hoyt's  letter,  and  report  to  me  your 
opinion  on  the  subject  at  as  early  a  day  as  may  be  practicable." 

The  language  of  this  letter  shows  that  Mr.  Ewing  had  not  very  care- 
fully examined  the  previous  correspondence  between  Mr.  Woodbury  and 
Hoyt,  or  else  the  unqualified  declaration  of  Mr.  Curtis,  that  Frazee  was 
authorized  to  "  go  on"  with  the  work,  threw  .him  off  his  guard.  >  There 
could  have  been  no  better  time  for  effecting  such  a  purpose.  The  Secre- 
_  tary  had  been  a  very  short  time  in  office,  and  was  consequently  not  very 
familiar  with  its  complicated  affairs,  and  there  was  much  to  confuse  and 
disturb  his  mind  in  the  dangerous  illness  of  the  then  President.  Under 
such  a  state  of  things,  it  was  not  likely  that  he  should  escape  the  conse- 
quences of  a  stroke  of  policy  as  bold  as  it  seemed  to  have  been  determined. 
He  therefore  confidingly  intrusted  the  matter  to  the  re-examination  of 
he  collector. 

But  on  the  1st  of  April,  1841,  (N,)  and  while  his  letter  of  the  25th 
March  was  yet  unanswered,  Mr.  Curtis  again  wrote  the  Secretary.  In 
this  letter  he  said  :  "  The  collectors  have  always  been  allowed  to  purchase 
necessary  far  nit  are  out  of  the  emoluments  of  the  office.  If  the  fees,  &c, 
at  this  time,  (had  the  act  of  14th  July,  1832,  not  gone  into  effect,)  would 
be  sufficient  to  defray  all  the  ordinary  expenses,  and  also  purchase  the 
furniture  wanted  for  the  new  custom-house,  I  can  see  no  reason  why 
the  collector  may  not,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary,  go  on  and 
furnish  the  custom-house,  as  the  act  of  21st  July,  1S40,  reviving  and 
continuing  the  relief  section,  as  it  has  been  termed,  places  at  the  disposal 
of  the  collector,  for  the  expenses  of  his  office,  the  same  amount  of  funds  that 
he  would  have  had  under  the  operation  of  the  laws  as  they  existed  prior 
to  the  14th  July,  1832." 

It  appears  to  the  committee  as  not  a  little  singular,  if"  the  collectors  have 
always  been  allowed  to  purchase  furniture  out  of  the  emoluments  of  the 
office,"  that  the  fact  should  not  have  occurred,  during  a  correspondence  of 
nearly  six  months,  to  Mr.  Woodbury  or  Mr.  Hoyt ;  and  especially  to  the 
latter,  who  seemed  so  anxious  about  it,  and  who  has  not  less  either  of 
talent  or  ingenuity  than  Mr.  Curtis.  But,  so  far  from  any  such  opinions 
being  entertained  by  them,  they  looked  during  this  whole  correspondence 
alone  to  an  appropriation  by  Congress.  Mr.  Woodbury,  in  his  letter  of 
14th  September,  1840,  had  said  that  no  furniture  could  be  procured  with- 
out an  appropriation,  "  ma/ess  the  officers  ivho  occupy  the  rooms  should 
think  proper  to  defray  such  expenses  out  of  their  emoluments ;"  and  the 
committee  are  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  found  that  no  other  "emoluments" 
have  heretofore,  by  the  sanction  of  law,  been  applied  to  this  purpose.  Mr 
Curtis  pretends  that  this  construction  can  be  put  upon  the  act  of  21st  July 


6 


Bep.  No.  1065. 


1840,  reviving  the  laws  as  they  existed  prior  to  the  14th  July,  1832. 
This  act  was  passed  during  Mr.  Hoyt's  administration  of  the  custom- 
house, and  while  Mr.  Woodbury  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  and  if 
it  had  been  liable  to  that  interpretation,  it  would  not  have  been  likely  to 
escape  their  observation.  Do  not  these  emoluments  pass  into  the  pubii*: 
Treasury  ?  Are  they  not  the  property  of  the  Government?  If  they  are 
capable  of  being  disposed  of  at  the  pleasure  of  the  collector,  the  extent  of 
his  power  cannot  be  readily  estimated.  The  annual  average  of  these  fees 
and  emoluments  for  the  last  sixteen  years  has  been  $44,4 17  55,  and  since 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  14th  of  July,  1832,  there  has  been  paid  out  of 
the  Treasury,  to  make  up  the  deficiency  in  them  occasioned  by  that  act, 
the  sum  of  $285,384  65,  the  amount  for  the  year  1840  alone  ben;? 
§60,755  SO  (0.)  If  it  were,  therefore,  admitted,  for  the  sake  of  argument", 
that  these  fees  were  subject  to  appropriation  and  expenditure  by  the  col- 
lector, as  his  ideas  of  taste  and  neatness  in  the  arrangement  of  the  custom- 
house may  dictate,  is  there  not  a  most  lamentable  defect  in  our  laws  which 
require  annual  appropriations  from  the  Treasury  to  make  good  the  deficit 
which  his  expenditures  may  create  ?  But  the  committee  do  not  think  the 
construction  of  the  collector  justified  by  the  terms  of  the  law,  and  are  com- 
pelled to  regard  all  the  expenditures  under  this  construction  as  in  violation 
of  its  import.  To  remedy  all  defects,  and  to  place  this  matter  beyond  the 
mere  caprice  of  the  collector  and  his  subordinates,  the  committee  do  not 
hesitate  to  recommend  that  the  salaries  of  all  the  officers  of  the  custom- 
house be  fixed  by  law,  and  that  they  be  paid  from  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Curtis  further  said,  in  this  letter  of  the  1st  of  April :  "  If  you  will 
give  me  authority,  I  will  proceed  to  furnish  the  building,  pursuing  the  plan 
proposed  by  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  to  the  late  Secretary,  and  which 
was  approved  by  him." 

And,  further  :  "  I  shall,  of  course,  observe  the  utmost  economy  in  fur- 
nishing the  new  house,  consistent  with  the  plans  of  the  architect,  which,  I 
have  before  said,  were  approved  by  the  late  Secretary,  whose  letter  I  have 
seen,  directing  Mr.  Frazee  to  pursue  his  plan,  &c,  and  not  that  of  Mr. 
Bowne."  This  letter  is  very  carefully  worded,  and  evidently  with  the 
intention  of  keeping  the  Secretary  unadvised,  as  far  as  possible,  of  the  facts  ; 
for,  while  he  could  not  have  anticipated  the  deception  which  was  practised 
upon  him,  the  crisis  of  the  President's  disease  had  so  nearly  arrived,  as  to 
alarm  not  only  the  Cabinet,  but  the  country. 

It  again,  in  effect,  when  he  declares  that  he  has  seen  the  letter  of  the 
Secretary,  directing  Mr.  Frazee  to  pursue  his  plan,  &.c,  reiterates  the  dec- 
laration in  his  letter  of  the  25th  of  February,  that  Mr.  Woodbury  had  di- 
rected Frazee  to  " go  on''  and  "finish  and  furnish7'  the  building  uth  his 
own  way."  The  committee  repeat  that  they  have  seen  nothing  authoriz- 
ing this  declaration,  and  can  but  wonder  at  the  pertinacity  with  which  it 
is  insisted  on. 

On  the  5th  of  April,  (P,)  Mr.  Ewing  wrote  to  Mr.  Curtis  as  follows : 
"  In  consideration  of  the  circumstances  stated  in  your  letter  of  the  1st  in- 
stant, I  deem  it  proper  to  authorize  you  to  furnish  the  new  custom-house 
plainly  and  substantially,  using  so  much  of  the  old  furniture  as  may  be 
convenient,  and  taking  care  to  exercise  proper  economy  in  the  matter." 

What  were  the  several  "circumstances"  in  Mr.  Curtis's  letter  of  the  1st 
instant,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Ewing?    The  first  was  the  declaration  of  Mr. 


Rep.  lSTo.  1065. 


7 


Curtis  that  "the  collectors  have  always  been  allowed  to  purchase  necessary 
furniture  out  of  the  emoluments  of  the  office"  and  the  second  that  he  had 
seen  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  "directing  Mr.  Frazee  to  pursue  his 
plan"  <$*c,  or,  in  other  words,  as  he  had  already  said  in  his  letter  of  25th. 
February,  directing  him  to  "go  on"  and  "finish  and  furnish"  the  house 
in  his  own  way. 

Now,  the  committee  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  is  unfortunate  for  the 
public  interest  that  this  consent,  contained  in  Mr.  Ewing's  letter  of  the  5th 
April,  was  given:  and  they  have  as  little  hesitation  in  declaring  it  to  be 
their  opinion  that  it  would  not  have  been  given  if  he  had  been  advised  of 
all  the  facts,  and  especially  of  that  most  important  one,  that  the  proposition 
to  appropriate  only  $8,000  for  this  purpose  had  failed  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  This  latter  fact  was  carefully  kept  from  his  view  by  Mr. 
Curtis  throughout  his  correspondence,  and  the  position  of  the  Secretary 
"was  taken  advantage  of  to  practise,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  the  most  disingen- 
uous artifice. 

But,  before  this  letter  of  Mr.  Ewing  of  the  5th  April  reached  Mr.  Curtis, 
he  prepared  his  letter  of  the  7th  April,  (Q,)  in  answer  to  Mr.  Ewing's  of 
the  2d  April,  which  enclosed  to  him  the  schedule  and  estimate  of  Horspool. 

In  this  letter  he  says  :  "  I  do  not  find,  upon  inquiry,  that  the  prices  stated 
in  the  schedule  are  much  out  of  the  way,  but  I  do  not  expect  to  employ 
the  person  who  made  out  that  estimate,  and  have  no  doubt  I  shall  save 
something  by  employing  other  persons.  It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to 
the  correspondence  with  Mr.  Frazee,  &c,  that  a  question  arose  whether 
Mr.  Frazee's  mode  and  plan  of  furnishing  should  be  adopted,  or  those  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Bowne,  the  commissioner.  The  correspondence  shows  that 
your  predecessor  adopted  that  of  Mr.  Frazee,  and  "  directed  him  to  go  on 
tvith  it." 

Here  again  the  quo  animo  of  the  collector  is  evident,  from  the  earnest- 
ness with  which  he  presses  upon  the  Secretary  the  declaration  that  Mr. 
Frazee  was  "  directed  to  go  on"  with  the  work.  He  had  resolved,  no 
doubt,  upon  effecting  his  purpose,  and  was  not  to  be  intimidated  by  ordina- 
ry impediments.  He  found  it  essential,  or  seemed  to  think  that  he  had,  to 
keep  before  Mr.  Ewing  his  interpretation  of  the  opinions  of  his  "  predeces- 
sor" as  inducements  for  his  own  ;  and,  while  he  hesitated  not  as  to  the  mode 
of  interpreting  those,  of  th£  latter,  he  most  industriously  sought  to  mould 
the  former  to  his  will.  How  well  he  effected  that  object  the  committee 
have  already  shown.  The  consequences  of  it  are  to  be  exhibited  hereafter. 

Before  this  letter  of  the  7th  April  was  despatched,  Mr.  Curtis  received 
that  of  the  5th  from  Mr.  Ewing.  He  consequently  added  to  it,  by  way  of 
postscript,  that,  "  in  pursuance  of  that  instruction  and  the  suggestions  of 
this  letter,  I  shall  forthwith  proceed  to  furnish  the  new  custom-house." 

The  committee,  having  thus  laid  before  the  House  all  the  facts  upon 
'which  authority  to  contract  for  furniture  for  the  custom-house  is  claimed  to 
rest,  will  state,  as  briefly  as  the  nature  of  it  will  permit,  as  derived  from  the 
parol  testimony  which  they  have  taken,  the  manner  in  which  the  matter 
has  been  conducted. 

On  the  10th  April,  (R,)  three  days  after  Mr.  Curtis  received  the  last  letter 
of  Mr.  Ewing,  he  addressed  to  a  Mr.  Joseph  Hough,  a  broker  and  lottery 
dealer  of  New  York,  a  letter,  from  which  the  following  are  extracts  : 

"I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  proceed  to  furnish. 


8 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


the  custom-house.  The  plan  and  style  of  furnishing  was  settled  by  Mr. 
Woodbury,  the  late  Secretary,  &c. 

"I  wish  you  to  assist  me  ;  for,  although  I  have  ?nade  inquiry  among 
the  cabinet  makers,  yet  I  have  not  the  time  personally  to  make  full  inqui- 
ry, nor  to  go  through  the  whole  operation  of  talking  the  matter  through  to 
the  end  with  half  a  dozen  contending  mechanics.  You  must  do  this.  In 
order  that  you  may  understand  and  be  able  to  make  others  understand,  I 
send  you  the  estimates  of  the  furniture  required,  made  out  by  Mr.  Hors- 
pool,  and  which  were  forwarded  by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Frazee  to  Mr. 
Woodbury.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  pay  the  prices  estimated  by  Mr.  Hors- 
pool ;  indeed,  from  my  inquiry,  I  do  not  think  I  shall  be  compelled  to  go 
up  to  these  prices.  If  you  cannot,  however,  find  some  one  who  will  do 
the  work  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  and  with  despatch,  for  less  than  Hors- 
pool,  then  he  must  have  the  contract ;  but  you  must  avoid  this." 

This  selection  of  Mr.  Hough,  as  an  agent  to  procure  a  cabinet  maker, 
certainly  has  something  about  it  most  strikingly  singular.  Why  he,  a  bro- 
ker, who  says  he  was  "  not  particularly  acquainted  with  the  article  of 
furniture"  should  have  been  selected  from  amongst  a  population  like  that 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  is  rather  inexplicable.  An  unprejudiced  mind  is 
compelled  to  view  it,  at  first  blush,  with  suspicion  ;  and  it  may  perhaps  be, 
that  the  influence  of  this  feeling  has  given  a  coloring  to  the  opinions  of  the 
committee  in  regard  to  the  transactions  which  have  grown  out  of  it.  Those 
opinions,  however,  are  the  result  of  the  most  anxious  thought  and  the  so- 
berest investigation. 

We  must  depend  upon  the  circumstances  elicited  during  the  investiga- 
tions of  the  committee  for  the  motive  which  induced  the  selection  of  Mr. 
Hough.  When  inquired  of  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Hough  says:  "  There 
never  teas  any  understanding  between  myself  and  Mr.  Curtis,  other 
than  what  is  contained  in  his  letter  and  my  reply."  Now,  this  letter  is 
a  mere  request  that  he  will  accept  the  agency  for  the  selection  of  a  certain 
cabinet  maker,  and  his  reply  (S)  informs  him  that  it  has  been  executed.  By 
the  terms  of  these  letters,  the  agency  was  at  an  end  upon  the  execution  of 
this  trust.  But  when  questioned  afterwards  upon  the  continuation  of  his 
agency,  he  says:  "  My  agency  consisted  entirely  in  this,  that  the  work 
should  not  be  delayed,  but  that  the  furniture  should  be  ready  as  required; 
which  agency  expired  when  the  work  was  completed,  about  two  months 
since"  And,  at  another  time,  he  says :  "  I  made  up  my  own  mind  that  I 
ought  to  be  paid  a  commission  of  one  per  cent,  upon  the  amount  dis- 
bursed." There  is  an  irreconcilable  discrepancy  in  these  statements.  If 
nothing  passed  between  Hough  and  Curtis,  except  what  is  contained  in  the 
correspondence  between  them,  it  is  very  manifest  that  his  agency  expired 
as  soon  as  Storm  had  been  contracted  with;  and  if  he  discharged  any  addi- 
tional agency,  such  as  seeing  that  the  work  should  not  be  delayed,  "  there 
must  have  have  been  some  additional"  understanding  between  him  and 
Curtis.  Did  Curtis  wait  from  the  10th  to  the  20th  of  April,  without  hear- 
ing from  him  ?  How  did  he  know  that  he  was  willing  to  undertake  the 
agency,  especially  when  the  execution  of  it  required  a  departure  from  his 
ordinary  avocations  ?  Upon  the  whole,  the  committee  do  not  hesitate  to 
believe  that  there  was  some  other  motive  than  is  deducible  from  the  terms 
of  Curtis's  letter  and  Hough's  reply.  Upon  any  other  hypothesis,  the  trans- 
action is  wholly  unexplainable. 

But  there  is  something  on  the  face  of  this  correspondence  itself  which 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


9 


has  stricken  the  committee  with  some  surprise.  The  letter  from  Curtis 
says:  "  You  must  call  the  manufacturers  to  the  new  custom-house,  and 
there,  with  them,  wait  upon  Mr.  Frazee,  who  will  exhibit  the  plans  and 
drawings  of  the  furniture  to  be  made."  This  instruction  was  not  only- 
proper,  but  just  such  an  one  as  gave  a  fair  opportunity  for  competition 
among  the  cabinet  makers,  and  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  the  furniture. 
Bat  how  was  it  executed  ?  Hough,  in  his  letter,  says:  "I  have  made  in- 
quiry among  the  cabinet  makers,  and  have  finally  selected  Mr.  Abraham 
Storm,  as  one  likely  to  give  satisfaction,  both  as  to  style  of  work  and 
economy  of  expense,  and  have  his  estimate  for  furnishing  the  new  custom- 
house, which  I  herewith  hand  you  "  If  there  were,  therefore,  no  under- 
standing between  them,  "other  than  what  is  contained"  in  these  letters, 
there  appears  to  the  committee  to  have  been  a  full  determination,  upon  the 
part  of  each,  to  deprive,  not  only  Horspool,  but  all  others,  of  the  job,  except 
such  as  were  particularly  acceptable  to  Mr.  Hough.  The  cabinet  makers 
were  not  called  together  at  the  custom-house,  and  this  Mr.  Curtis  must 
have  known.  The  "  plans  and  drawings  of  the  furniture,"  which  Hough 
was  told  would  be  furnished  by  Frazee  at  the  custom-house,  were  never 
exhibited  to  Storm — Curtis  only  furnishing  Hough  with  HorspooPs  esti- 
mate of  prices,  in  order  thnt  he  might  be  enabled  to  '•'  avoid"  contracting 
with  Horspool  himself.  Without  these  "  plans  and  drawings,"  Storm  could 
not  bid  for  the  work  advisedly;  yet  it  will  be  seen,  by  the  terms  of  his  con- 
tract, (T,)  that  they  were  never  furnished,  for  it  contains  nothing  but  the 
names  of  the  several  articles,  just  as  they  were  in  Horspool's  estimate, 
which  was  made  out  long  before  Curtis's  letter  of  instructions  to  Hough 
was  written.  The  committee  think  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Curtis, 
after  Mr.  Hough  neglected  these  several  essentials  to  a  fair  and  open  con- 
tract, which  would  have  done  full  justice  to  all  the  cabinet  makers  as  well 
as  to  the  Government,  to  attend  to  them  himself,  and  that  the  neglect  of 
them  is  highly  censurable. 

But  Mr.  Hough  says,  in  this  letter:  "  I  have  made  inquiry  among  the 
cabinet  makers"  In  his  testimony  before  the  committee  he  says :  "  i 
consulted  no  cabinet  maker  ;  I  informed  jnyself  from  other  sources" 
Which  of  these  statements  is  true,  the  committee  have  no  means  of  deter- 
mining, but  incline  to  think  the  latter  to  be  so,  from  the  fact  that  it  seems 
more  reconcilable  with  some  other  features  of  this  transaction.  Why  Mr. 
Hough  should  have  made  one  statement  in  his  letter,  and  another  in  his 
testimony,  directly  in  conflict  with  it,  is  more  difficult  of  interpretation. 

He  also  tells  Mr.  Curtis  that  he  has  procured  Storm's  "  estimate  for  fur- 
nishing the  new  custom-house,  which  I  [he]  herewith  hand  you."  This 
statement  he  confirms  in  his  testimony.  But  Storm  swears  that  he  did  not 
furnish  Hough  with  "an estimate  of  prices,"  (and reiterates  the  declaration,) 
but  that  he  furnished  it  to  Mr.  Curtis.  If  he  did  not  furnish  it,  Hough  writes 
untruly  in  his  letter  to  Curtis,  and  so  swears  before  the  committee  ;  and  if  he 
did,  Storm  swears  falsely.  Which  of  these  conclusions  is  the  true  one,  is 
probably  not  very  material  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  matter  submitted 
to  the  committee,  except  as  an  index  to  other  things  which  follow. 

Another  singular  state  of  facts  is  developed  by  this  correspondence  be- 
tween Curtis  and  Hough.  After  saying,  "  I  have  made  inquiry  among  the 
cabinet  makers,"  &c.,  Curtis  says,  "I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  pay  the  prices 
estimated  by  Mr.  Horspool,"  &c.  Now,  it  is  perfectly  manifest,' from  these 
deductions,  that  Mr.  Curtis  must  have  ascertained,  from  his  "  inquiry  among 


10 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


the  cabinet  makers,"  lhat  the  work  could  be  done  cheaper  than  the  esti- 
mate of  Horspool.  Why,  therefore,  did  he  not  inform  Hough  of  this  fact, 
and  desire  him  to  call  on  those  who  would  do  it  cheaper  ?  Mr.  Shipman, 
a  cabinet  maker  of  capital  and  experience,  had  already  desired  the  job. 
Why  was  not  Hough  referred  to  him?  Instead  of  pursuing  this  open  and 
ingenuous  course,  Hough,  a  lottery  broker,  "  not  particularly  acquainted 
with  the  article  of  furniture,"  was  permitted  to  exercise  his  discretion.  He 
says  he  called  on  no  cabinet  maker  but  Storm,  whom  he  "selected;" 
and  the  committee  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  it  was  because  he 
was  thus  "  selected"  that  Curtis  contracted  with  him,  and  not  from  any 
knowledge  he  himself  possessed  of  his  means,  capacity,  or  ability  to  execute 
the  contract.  Why  he  was  thus  "selected,"  and  why  he  was  thus  con- 
tracted with,  the  sequel  will  develop. 

There  is  one  very  specific  and  rather  curious  instruction  in  this  letter  of 
Mr.  Curtis.  He  says  :  "  If  you  cannot,  however,  find  some  one  who  will 
do  the  work  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  and  with  despatch,  for  less  than 
Horspool  asks,  then  lie  must  have  the  contract;  but  you  must  avoid  this" 
Why  should  he  avoid  giving  it  to  Horspool,  or  deprive  him  of  the  opportu- 
nity of  entering  into  fair  competition  with  other  workmen  ?  Was  he  not  as 
honest  and  competent  as  Storm  ?  He  had  been  originally  selected  to  make 
the  estimate  by  Frazec,  and  it  was  this  estimate  which  was  laid  before  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  which  Mr.  Curtis  says  Mr.  Woodbury  ap- 
proved. 

The  committee  think,  if  there  was  to  be  no  competition  in  the  matter, 
that  Horspool  should  have  had  the  opportunity  of  refusing  or  accepting  the 
job.  But  they  find  that,  instead  of  being  thus  fairly  dealt  with  by  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Government,  his  estimate  is  extorted  from  him,  under  the  belief 
that  he  shall  have  a  chance  for  the  work  ;  and  this  Very  estimate  is  placed 
in  the  hands  of  a  selected  favorite  of  the  collector,  who  is  specially  instruct- 
ed to  "avoid"  him,  and  it  is  ultimately  made  the  means  of  underbidding 
him. 

The  committee  can  find  no  softer  terms  by  which  to  characterize  this 
conduct,  than  that  it  is  unfair,  unjust,  and  oppressive. 

But  how  did  Hough  contrive  to  "  avoid"  Horspool?  By  failing  to  give 
public  notice,  which  the  interest  of  the  Government  required  should  be 
done,  and  by  secretly  and  privately  selecting  Storm.  He  says:  u  I  gave 
no  notice  whatever."  "I  consulted  no  cabinet  maker,"  but  "  made  sue': 
inquiry"  as  "satisfied  myself"  which  I  derived  "from  other  sources." 
W7hat  "  other  sources"  of  information  had  he  ?  Did  he  call  upon  gentle- 
men of  his  own  occupation,  to  ascertain  the  prices  for  which  he  could  pro- 
cure cabinet  furniture  ?  Certainly,  if  there  had  not  been  something  about 
this  business  that  the  parties  did  not  desire  should  see  the  light,  there  could  have 
been  no  hesitation  about  consulting  the  cabinet  makers  themselves.  They 
were  the  proper  persons  to  furnish  correct  information.  But  they  are  stu- 
diously avoided,  and  Storm  is  "selected"  by  information  from  "  other 
-sources."  And  how  was  he  selected?  Hough  says,  when  he  called  on 
Storm,  he  "  submitted  a  list  of  the  furniture"  Storm  says  that  he  not 
only  did  not  submit  such  a  list,  but  merely  told  him  that  Mr.  Curtis  desir- 
ed to  see  him  ;  and  this  he  states  more  than  once.  Hough  swears  that 
lie  called  on  Storm  some  "half  dozen"  times  before  the  contract  was  made 
-with  Curtis.  Storm  swears  that  there  was  "  only  one"  such  interview. 
Hough  swears  that  he  had  several  interviews  with  Storm,  "  without  men- 


Bcp.  No.  1065. 


11 


lion  of  Mr.  Curtis. 99  Storm  swears  that  he  mentioned  him  at  the  first  and 
only  interview  they  had.  These  discrepancies  are  totally  irreconcilable 
with  tlje  truth.  One  or  the  other  of  these  witnesses  speaks  falsely.  If  the 
transaction  between  them  had  been  a  fair  and  honest  one,  there  was  no 
need  for  hesitation  or  concealment ;  there  was  none  for  that  deep  reluctance 
with  which  the  few  facts  that  were  extorted  from  them  by  piecemeal 
were  told.  The  truth  fears  no  exposure,  but  error  and  falsehood  are  al- 
ways seeking  concealment.  Why  it  was  sought  in  this  case  must  appear 
from  the  facts.  In  the  course  of  their  commentary  upon  these  facts,  the 
committee  will  have  occasion  to  exhibit  some  other  most  striking  and  sin- 
gular discrepances  between  the  testimony  of  Hough  and  Storm. 

Before  the  committee  proceed  to  expose  what  they  believe  to  have  been 
the  motive  for  the  secret  management  of  this  matter,  they  will  remark  that 
it  is  their  full  conviction  that  Hough  and  Storm  came  before  them  with  a 
concerted  story  in  regard  to  their  connexion,  and  that  it  was  only  by  the 
most  persevering  course  of  examination  that  any  thing  approximating  the 
truth  was  obtained  from  either  of  them.  How  else  can  their  repeated  con- 
tradictions be  accounted  for  ?  And  it  may  be  further  necessary  to  remark, 
that  all  the  facts  may  be  properly  appreciated,  that  the  conduct  of  the  col- 
lector, as  connected  with  the  examination  itself,  is  not  altogether  without 
suspicion.  It  will  be  perceived,  by  an  examination  of  the  evidence,  that 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  McAuley  was  very  material  to  a  full  understanding  of 
this  matter.  Yet  he  could  not  pass  through  New  York,  on  his  way  to  this 
city,  without  a  visit  from  Mr.  Curtis! 

Now,  this  Mr.  McAuley  is  evidently  an  unwilling,  though  the  commit- 
tee think  an  honest  witness.  When  interrogated  on  the  subject  of  his  being 
conversed  with  in  New  York  about  this  investigation,  it  required  several 
^questions  to  extract  from  him  the  admission  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Curtis  had 
called  on  him. 

WThy  should  Mr.  Curtis  desire  to  converse  with  a  witness  who  had  been 
subpoenaed  by  this  committee,  and  to  attempt  to  create  impressions  upon  his 
mind  ?  For  he  tells  him  that  he  does  not  believe  that  Hough  ever  received 
a  cent  from  Storm. 

This  may  be  consistent  with  the  entire  innocence  of  the  collector  ;  but, 
in  transactions  between  individuals,  the  law  would  regard  such  an  inter- 
ference with  a  good  deal  of  suspicion.  And  by  repeated  and  tedious  in- 
terrogatories the  fact  was  reluctantly  extorted  from  Storm  and  Hough, 
that  he  had  been  carrying  on  a  private  correspondence  with  Hough  while 
attending  the  sessions  of  the  committee.  This  private  letter  was  handed 
by  Mr.  Curtis  to  McAuley,  and  was  directed  to  Storm,  enclosed  in  a  blank 
envelope.  Why  not  direct  it  to  Hough  at  once  ?  Wherefore  the  necessi- 
ty for  circuity  in  a  plain  and  honest  business  transaction  ?  When  the  let- 
ter is  traced  to  Hough,  he  says  he  would  have  no  objection  to  exhibit  a 
copy  of  it,  but  it  is  torn  up  !  Why  tear  it  up  ?  If  it  were  a  business  letter, 
he  certainly  would  not  have  done  so.  If  it  was  upon  the  subject  of  this 
investigation,  (and  Hough  admits  that  a  part  of  it  was,)  then  the  very  fact 
of  destroying  it  shows  that  there  was  something  in  it  which  either  Hough 
or  Curtis,  or  both,  were  afraid  to  have  exposed.  The  committee  think  that 
these  circumstances  are  by  no  means  creditable  to  the  collector  ;  and  that, 
if  he  had  felt  conscious  rectitude  of  motive,  he  would  have  permitted  the 
investigation  to  have  gone  on  without  interference  from  him.  Innocence 
has  no  fear  of  truth  or  its  consequences. 


12 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


It  will  be  perceived  that  there  is  so  much  and  so  striking  discrepancy 
between  the  statements  of  Hough  and  Storm,  as  to  the  number  and  char- 
acter of  the  interviews  between  them  before  the  contract  for  furniture  was 
made,  that  it  is  impossible  to  confide  in  either.  Enough,  however,  is  shown 
to  justify  the  belief  that,  when  the  proposition  was  first  made  to  Storm,  he 
gave  no  satisfactory  answer,  and  could  not  determine  what  to  do  with- 
out reflection  and  consultation.    This  consultation  was  had  with  several 
persons,  and  especially  with  Mr.  Charles  McAulcy,  whom  he  visited  im- 
mediately.   McAuley  swears  that  he  (Storm)  told  him  that  Hough  had 
"asked  him  if  he  would  divide  the  profits  with  him  if  tie  would  give  him 
a  job  of  from  20,000  to  25,000  dollars"  and  advised  with  him  what  to  do. 
He  gave  him  no  advice,  but  recommended  him  to  call  on  Moses  H.  Grin- 
nell.    When  Hough  and  Storm  were  questioned  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
they  positively  denied  it;  but  the  committee  are  compelled  to  regard  their 
frequent  contradictions  of  each  other  as  entirely  destroying  their  credibility, 
especially  in  all  matters  connected  with  this  combination  to  cheat  the  Gov- 
ernment.   Even  in  regard  to  the  fact  of  having  known  each  other  before, 
they  are  involved  in  a  positive  contradiction.    Storm  says,  that  before  the 
contract  he  had  known  Hough  "for  some  lime  as  a  bowing  acquaintance" 
fyc,  and  Hough  swears  that  he  had  no  acquaintance  with  Storm.  These  dis- 
crepancies are  found  to  exist  throughout  nearly  all  the  material  portions  of 
their  testimony,  except  that  which  relates  to  what  they  state  in  regard  to 
Storm's  proposition  to  Hough  to  make  him  an  advance  of  money  to  prose- 
cute the  job.    The  manner  in  which  this  is  stated  proves  evidently  that  it 
was  a  concerted  story,  made  either  before  they  left  New  York  or  after  they 
came  to  Washington,  to  prevent  the  detection  of  the  fraud  which  they 
had  practised.    No  one  can  doubt  this  when  it  is  seen  that  they  cannot 
identify  the  time  when  this  proposition  was  made — Storm  swearing  that  it 
was  "  after  the  contract  was  entered  into"  and  Hough,  with  equal  pos- 
itiveness.  that  it  was  before  that  time.    It  would  be  useless  to  pursue  these 
discrepancies,  for  it  would  make  this  report  too  voluminous,  and  tend  to  no 
practical  result,  as  the  most  cursory  observation  must  satisfy  all,  who  take 
the  pains  to  examine  the  evidence,  that  both  of  these  men  are  unworthy  of 
credit,  whatever  may  have  been  their  previous  standing  in  society.  Mr. 
Hough  is  said  to  have  sustained  a  good  reputation,  and  he  has  furnished 
evidence  of  this  fact  in  the  testimonials  of  several  gentlemen  of  the  highest 
standing  in  the  public  councils  and  in  private  life,  (U ;)  and  Storm  has 
also  furnished  testimony  of  his  previous  standing,  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Barclay.    But  this,  it  seems,  is  no  guarantee  against  the  thousand  tempta- 
tions which  beset  the  pathway  of  all  who  are  associated  with  the  New 
York  custom-house,  and  which  appear  to  have  seduced  them  into  practices 
which  there,  perhaps,  are  only  considered  as  evidences  of  tact  and  ingenu- 
ity, rather  than  of  criminality.    However  this  may  be,  they  must  be  con- 
tent to  abide  the  judgment  of  the  country  upon  the  facts  here  developed. 
The  committee  have  no  desire  to  do  them  wrong.    They  have  hesitated 
long  before  coming  to  these  conclusions,  and  have  studied  anxiously  to 
avoid  them.    If  they  are  wrong,  theirs  is  an  error  of  judgment,  not  of  in- 
tention. 

It  is  impossible  that  they  can  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion,  in  regard  to 
this  matter,  than  that  Storm  did  communicate  to  McAuley  and  Ruckelthe 
true  proposition  made  to  him  by  Hough  :  which  was,  that  Hough  should 
receive  a  part  of  the  profits  of  the  job.    And  they  are  inclined  to  think 


Hep.  No.  1065. 


13 


that  McAuley  stated  to  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  much  more  correctly  than  fcfe 
since  remembers,  or  is  willing  to  tell,  the  conversation  between  him  and 
Storm  ;  and  when  he  said  that  Storm  told  him  that  u  he  could  add  on  to 
the  different  articles  enough  to  make  up  the  bonus"'  which  Hough  was 
to  receive,  and  that  "  he  should  clear  six  thousand  dollars,  and  Hough 
would  receive  as  much  ?nore"  This  belief  is  more  than  warranted  from 
the  fact  that,  after  the  contract  was  entered  into,  and  the  prices  and  char- 
acter of  the  work  ag^ed  upon,  continual  changes  were  made  in  both.  The 
contract  bound  Storm  to  execute  the  job  for  S IS, 555,  and  the  account  now 
rendered  is  for  §25,937,  leaving  $1,382  which  he  yet  claims,  and  which  is 
still  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector.  This  would  make  a  very 
handsome  profit  for  Mr.  Hough,  and  would  compensate  him  very  fully  for 
his  most  valuable  services  in  superintending  and  seeing  that  the  work  was 
faithfully  executed — a  duty  which  he  was  so  well  qualified,  from  previous 
habit,  to  discharge. 

Since  this  investigation,  and  after  Storm  and  Hough  returned  to  New 
York  from  their  attendance  upon  the  committee,  both  Mr.  Curtis  and  Storm 
have  forwarded  to  the  committee  and  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
statements  made  by  persons,  respectable  no  doubt,  in  regard  to  the  value 
of  this  work.  These  statements  are  entirely  ex  parte,  and  have  not  been 
regarded  by  the  committee  ;  nor,  viewing  the  foregoing  facts  as  they  have 
done,  do  they  consider  them  at  all  material.  If,  as  they  do  not  doubt, 
Hough  and  Storm  each  entertained  a  fraudulent  design  when  their  con- 
tract was  entered  into,  it  is  not  very  difficult  to  determine  that  this  design 
still  exists,  and  that  they  would  not  hesitate  to  make  as  many  innocent  per- 
sons as  possible  auxiliary  to  it.  The  estimates  of  value  made  at  this  time 
must  necessarily  depend  more  or  less  upon  the  statements  and  representa- 
tions of  Storm.  Therefore,  it  may  very  easily  happen  that  his  appraisers 
may  have  been  led  into  error  by  him ;  and  this  the  more  easily,  as  they  are 
said  to  be  very  honest  and,  of  course,  unsuspicious  men.  Whatever  may 
be  the  character  of  their  appraisements,  the  committee  cannot  notice  them, 
as  they  do  not  come  before  them  in  a  manner  to  be  recognised  as  evidence. 
Besides,  it  is  not  now  considered  important  what  the  value  of  the  work  is, 
for,  as  it  will  afterwards  appear,  there  was  no  authority  under  the  law  or 
the  contract  to  construct  it  as  it  now  is. 

By  reference  to  the  contract,  it  will  be  seen  that  Storm  was  bound  to 
finish  the  entire  job  for  $1S,555,  and  that  the  collector,  Mr.  Curtis,  only 
retained  the  power  to  alter  the  character  of  the  work.  Now,  it  does  not 
any  where  appear  that  authority  was  given  by  Curtis  to  Stormib  alter  any 
portion  of  it.  Frazee,  the  architect  and  superintendent,  swears  that  he  gave 
the  directions,  and  in  this  he  is  corroborated  by  Storm.  These  directions  Storm 
was  under  no  obligations  to  obey,  and  all  alterations  in  the  work  made  by 
him,  in  consequence  of  them,  were  made  at  his  own  hazard.  The  Govern- 
ment, certainly,  is  not  bound  by  any  thing  done  by  Frazee  under  this  con- 
tract, with  which  he  had  nothing  to  do,  and  of  which  fact  Storm  was  well 
aware.  If  it  were,  and  the  precedent  should  be  now  established,  it  would 
inevitably  lead  to  the  most  wasteful  and  extravagant  expenditure  of  pub- 
lic money.  For  the  whole  of  this  extra  work  there  is  no  shadow  of  claim 
against  the  Government,  and  the  committee  have  not  hesitated  to  recom- 
mend that  it  should  not  be  paid.  If  the  work  were  necessary  to  the  cus- 
tom-house, or  if  it  were  indispensable  to  the  furniture,  an  equitable  case 
for  compensation  would  be  presented-,  which  they  would  not  feel  at  liberty 


14 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


to  disregard.  But  it  is  not  so.  The  whole  is  extravagant  beyond  exam- 
ple, as  they  have  every  reason  to  believe. 

In  view  of  the  whole  case,  so  far  as  Mr.  Storm  is  concerned,  they  think 
that  he  has  had  ample  justice  done  him,  and  that  he  has  been  paid  alf  he  can 
rightfully  demand.  His  contract  was  not  authorized  by  law,  but  was  made 
m  the  face  of  a  positive  refusal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  grant 
authority  to  make  it ;  and  to  give  it  now  the  force  and  validity  of  one  made 
by  such  authority  would  be  to  invite  the  most  unnecessary  expenditures 
of  money  by  all  the  public  officers  of  the  country  wwmight  have  the  har- 
dihood to  make  contracts  for  that  which  they  considered  necessary  to  their 
comfort  and  convenience. 

The  committee  think  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  put  a  stop  to  such 
things  at  once,  for  the  most  ample  treasury  will  not  furnish  the  means  of 
meeting  the  requisitions  which  they  will  make  upon  it.  And,  while  they 
thus  insist  upon  a  strict  adherence  to  this  rule,  they  can  well  conceive  that 
it  will  be  urged  that  injustice  will  result  to  the  honest  workmen,  who  are 
thus  circumvented  by  cunning  office  holders,  or  those  whom  they  employ 
to  do  their  work,  when  they  themselves  do  not  desire  to  be  known  in  the 
settlement  of  the  private  conditions  of  a  contract.  But  even  if  this  were  a 
case  of  that  kind,  and  Storm  was  not  shown  to  have  entered  upon  the 
contract  with  a  fraudulent  design,  he  is  not  without  his  remedy.  The 
law, open  alike  to  all,  will  afford  him  redress,  if  he  can  go  into  her  sanctuary 
with  clean  hands.  But  of  the  Government  he  can  expect  nothing  more. 
In  this  business,  she  has  endured  imposition  enough ;  and  it  is  time  that  all 
men  connected  with  public  affairs  should  be  taught  that  the  public 
money  is  guarded  by  legislative  power,  and  that  the  purse-strings  shall  not 
be  loosened  as  the  interest  of  private  individuals  may  require.  And  there 
could  possibly  arise  no  case  in  which  the  necessity  for  the  adoption  of  the 
rule  now  insisted  on  by  the  committee  is  more  clearly  exemplified  than  this. 
When  the  subject  was  first  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  while 
Mr.  Curtis  was  a  member,  the  sum  of  $8,000  alone  was  asked.  After- 
wards it  was  estimated  at  $18,555,  for  which  Storm  agreed  to  do  it ;  and 
now  the  Government  is  asked  to  pay  the  sum  of  #25,937  ! 

The  committee  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  regard  to  this  contract  with 
Storm,  and  the  execution  of  it,  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector, 
was  in  the  highest  degree  censurable.  They  have  already  said  that  the 
very  fact  of  selecting  a  broker  to  make  a  furniture  contract  was  suspi- 
cious. They  repeat  that  they  can  look  upon  it  no  more  charitably.  And 
this  suspicion  is  not  diminished  when  they  consider  the  fact  that  his  agency 
continued  until  the  job  was  finished,  without  any  understanding  as  to  his 
compensation.  There  is  sometfung  in  this  rather  inexplicable.  It  is  not 
likely  that  Mr.  Hough  would  have  thus  neglected  his  own  business  with- 
out compensation  ;  and,  there  being  no  compensation  agreed  on,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  there  was  a  private  understanding  between  Curtis  and 
him  in  regard  to  it ;  for  that  something  of  a  very  private  nature  has  passed 
between  them  is  evident  from  the  fact  of  Curtis's  having  written  to  Hough 
after  he  came  to  Washington,  which  letter  Hough  says  he  destroyed! 
Did  Curtis  know  what  had  passed  between  Storm  and  Hough  in  regard 
10  the  contracts?  This  is  all  that  points  towards  Hough's  compensation  ; 
and  therefore  was  most  probably  known  to  him,  or  he  would  have  said 
something  to  Hough  about  his  expectations  in  regard  to  pay.  A  perfect 
silence  having  been  maintained  on  this  subject  by  both  of  them,  there  must 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


15 


have  been  some  other  source  from  which  compensation  was  expected. 
And  if  there  was,  the  silence  of  Curtis  is  evidence  of  the  fact  that  he  knew 
it ;  for,  looking  to  this  quarter,  it  was  unnecessary  to  have  an  additional 
understanding.  The  testimony  shows  this  other  source  to  have  been  the 
interest  which  Hough  had  in  the  profits  of  Storm's  contract.  This  interest, 
being  in  the  shape  of  a  bonus,  to  be  raised  by  adding  to  the  prices  of  the 
work,  the  committee  therefore  conclude  was  not  unknown  to  the  collector;, 
for  they  can  imagine  of  no  other  motive  for  Hough's  selection,  than  that 
he  should  have  an  opportunity  of  making  money,  that  being  his  only  oc- 
cupation. Hough  says  that  he  had  "been  intimately  acquainted  with 
Mr.  Curtis  for  twenty-five  years"  and  that  he  hadx"  been  employed  by 
him  in  extensive  transactions."  Wherefore,  then,  the  diplomatic  style  of 
correspondence  upon  so  plain  a  business  transaction  as  this,  they  have 
adopted,  and  which  Hough  swears  contains  all  the  "  understanding"  be- 
tween  Curtis  and  himself?  Was  there  any  necessity  for  it  ?  And  if  there 
had  been,  is  it  probable,  or  indeed  possibles  that  it  contains  all  the  "  un- 
derstanding" between  these  gentlemen  ?  Was  there  nothing  said,  by  either 
•  of  them,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Hough's  violation  of  his  instructions,  and  his 
failure  to  consult  other  mechanics  ?  If  not,  Mr.  Curtis  was  evidently 
guilty  of  neglect.  Was  no  motive  assigned  for  the  selection  of  a  man 
totally  without  capital,  and  who  had  to  borrow  the  money  to  carry  on  the 
contract?  If  there  was  not,  Mr.  Curtis  was  culpably  negligent  of  his  duty 
in  thus  hazarding  a  loss  to  the  Government.  The  committee,  however, 
can  find  more  reconciliation  with  probabilities  in  the  conclusion  that  the 
whole  facts  were  fully  known  to  the  collector,  and  that  Storm  was  selected, 
from  the  fact  of  his  being  in  a  condition  that  his  necessities  might  tempt 
him  to  be  made  the  instrument  of  a  fraudulent  purpose.  Why  not  openly 
proclaim  to  other  workmen,  that  it  was  desired  to  make  the  contract  ? 
Why  not  go  to  men  of  capital,  who  were  extensively  engaged  in  business, 
and  who  would  not  likely  have  yielded  to  the  approaches  of  dishonesty  ? 
These  are  matters  which  it  will  be  found  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  in- 
nocent intention  of  those  who  too  successfully  converted  a  poor  and  until 
then  an  honest  man  into  an  instrument  by  which  they  or  their  friends 
might  profit. 

Mr.  Curtis  has  more  than  once  attempted  to  explain  this  transaction,  but 
nowhere  has  he  assigned  a  reason  for  this  selection  of  Hough,  or  for  his 
neglect  in  not  permitting  other  workmen  to  have  an  opportunity  of  taking 
the  job.  His  brother,  George  Curtis,  Esq.,  who  acted  as  his  representa- 
tive, called  upon  the  committee,  (V,)  and  was  permitted  to  examine  all  the 
evidence,  and  an  opportunity  was  offered  him  of  interrogating  any  of  the 
witnesses,  or  of  introducing  other  and  exculpatory  testimony  (W.)  Hav- 
ing done  neither,  the  committee  conclude  that  the  collector  can  even  now, 
in  his  own  bosom,  find  no  excuse  or  apology  for  an  act  which,  per  se,  is  so 
exceptionable,  and  that  his  whole  defence  is  contained  in  his  letters  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  In  the  one  of  30th  May  last,  addressed  to  Mr. 
Forward,  (X,)  he  evidently  endeavors  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  the 
increased  amount  of  the  job  upon  the  shoulders  of  Frazee.  He  says  that 
he  did  not  learn  the  "  material  changes  calculated  to  enhance  the  ex- 
pense beyond  the  contract"  until  "after  the  naval  office  was  finished." 
The  extra  work  on  the  naval  office  constitutes  but  a  small  portion  of  the 
increase  in  Storm's  charge  over  and  above  his  contract  price.  Why  was 
Frazee  permitted  to  do  as  he  pleased,  when  he  had  no  power  to  alter  any 


16 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


part  of  the  job?  It  seems  to  tlie  committee  that  the  whole  matter  has 
been  so  arranged  as  to  prevent  the  fixing  of  responsibility  upon  any  body. 
Curtis  makes  a  contract  which  Frazee  violates,  and  the  Government  is  the 
sufferer,  while  all  the  parties  are  gainers. 

Curtis  says,  when  lie  made  the  discovery  that  the  extra  work  had  been 
done,  the  job  was  so  far  completed  that  it  was  M  too  late"  for  Storm  to  re- 
trace "  his  steps."  Where  was  he  all  this  time  ?  What  had  become  of  his 
supervising  care,  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  endeavored  to 
enlist,  when  he  requested  that  the  strictest  economy  should  be  observed  ? 
Where  was  Hough,  his  directing  and  governing  agent,  with  whom  he  had 
been  so  often  before  engaged  in  business  ?  To  say  the  least  of  it,  it  is  not 
very  probable  that  the  collector  was  wholly  ignorant  of  these  things,  which 
were  going  on  almost  directly  before  his  face,  or  that  he  did  not  countenance 
them,  especially  when  he  now  considers  them  so  essential  to  the  character 
of  the  building,  and  so  vastly  superior  to  any  thing  of  the  kind  in  the  coun- 
try. Does  it  not  rather  seem  more  consistent  with  other  portions  of  this 
transaction  to  suppose  that  this  ignorance  of  the  collector  was  necessary  to 
the  consummation  of  the  bargain  between  Hough  and  Storm  ?  How  else 
can  we  account  for  his  permitting  the  agency  of  Hough  to  continue,  after 
the  contract  with  Storm  had  concluded,  and  when  his  original  letter  looked 
to  no  such  result  ?  It  must  have  been  a  part  of  the  secret  understanding 
by  which  the  common  purposes  of  the  parties  were  to  be  consummated, 
and  can  be  characterized  by  no  other  name  than  a  most  studied  ignorance. 
Although  it  is  extremely  difficult,  from  the  several  statements  of  Frazee  on 
this  subject,  to  tell  his  real  meaning,  yet  the  committee  think  the  statement 
made  by  him  near  the  commencement  of  his  examination,  and  before  he 
had  an  opportunity  to  perceive  the  object  for  which  he  was  interrogated, 
is  most  likely  to  be  true,  viz  :  that  Mr.  Curtis  "  always  approved  of  all  the 
changes  and  modifications  of  the  work  that  were  ?nade.'y  But  this  ap- 
proval was  given  to  Frazee,  and  not  to  Storm,  and  therefore  does  not  ben- 
efit him."  Now,  the  question  must  assume  one  of  two  aspects:  Frazee 
must  either  have  ordered  these  changes  of  his  own  accord,  in  which  event 
Storm  was  not  bound  by  them,  or  Curtis  must  have  approved  them,  and 
made  Frazee  the  instrument  of  their  execution,  himself  being  masked  be- 
hind the  battery.  If  the  latter  supposition  be  true,  Curtis  is  the  guilty  party, 
and  should  be  held  liable  for  the  injury  to  whomsoever  shall  sustain  it. 

Mr.  Curtis  says  that,  at  the  time  of  making  the  discovery  that  the  char- 
acter of  the  work  had  been  changed  and  the  price  enlarged,  he  notified 
Storm  <k  distinctly  that  I  [he]  had  no  power  to  exceed  the  maximum  com- 
pensation in  the  contract,  and  that  the  furniture  must  be  delivered  at  his 
risk  for  any  excess  beyond  the  contract  aggregate."  If  this  be  true,  it 
furnishes  an  additional  argument  why  Storm  should  not  be  paid  any  more 
than  he  has  received.  But  the  committee  are  very  much  inclined  to  think 
that  the  facts  will  show  the  memory  of  Mr.  Curtis  to  have  been  rather 
treacherous  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Storm  swears  that  he  told  him  "  he 
had  paid  as  far  as  he  felt  himself  authorized  by  the  contract,"  only 
at  "about  one  month  ago;17  that  is,  about  one  month  before  he  was 
sworn  as  a  witness  before  this  committee.  And  Storm  seems  to  be  corrob- 
orated in  this  matter  by  the  language  which  he  uses  to  Curtis  himself,  in 
his  letter  of  the  17th  June  last,  (Y,)  after  he  returned  from  Washington, 
to  New  York)  in  which  he  urges  an  immediate  payment  of  the  money,  to 
save  him  from  ruin.    Why  the  original  of  this  letter,  directed  to  Mr.  Cur- 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


17 


tis,  has  been  placed  before  the  committee,  they  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive,  un- 
less it  was  deemed  essential,  after  Mr.  Storm  returned  from  Washington, 
to  have  it  appear  that  he  had  suffered  greatly  by  the  contract,  and  that  the 
work  was  worth  greatly  more  than  he  had  received,  thereby  resisting  the 
conclusion  that  any  portion  of  the  remaining  balance  was  reserved  for  com- 
pensation to  Hough.  Why  was  such  a  letter  written,  if  it  was  well  un- 
derstood between  Curtis  and  Storm  that  no  more  money  could  be  paid  upon 
the  contract  ?  But  it  appears  to  the  committee  that  this  whole  excuse  was 
an  afterthought,  and  never  dreamed  of  until  this  matter  was  agitated  in 
Congress.  A  resolution  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  by 
Mr.  Proffit,  of  Indiana,  at  the  extra  session  of  Congress  in  1S41,  turned  at- 
tention to  it;  and  that  by  which  this  committee  was  raised,  on  the  13th 
May,  gave  ample  warning  to  the  parties  that  it  was  necessary  to  avoid 
exposure  ;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  too,  that  the  time  that  this  com- 
mittee was  raised  is  just  about  the  time  that  Storm  first  received  this  in- 
formation. But,  if  it  was  net  intended  by  Mr.  Curtis  to  pay  Storm  the 
balance  of  his  bill,  why  was  not  his  account  embraced  with  those  placed 
before  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  ?  The  greater  part  of  his  work 
was  then  done  ;  and  if  he  is  now  entitled  to  pay,  he  was  equally  entitled  to 
it  at  that  time.  But  not  a  word  was  said  about  his  claim,  while  it  was 
known  that  it  could  be  inserted  in  no  other  bill  during  the  session,  until 
after  this  committee  was  raised  ;  and  then  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  30th  of  May, 
writes  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  he  had  informed  Storm  that 
no  further  payments  could  be  made  !  The  veil  by  which  all  this  is  at- 
tempted to  be  concealed  is  rather  Jlimsy^  but  still  it is  ingenious.  While 
it  is  unpleasant  to  be  compelled  to  make  such  exposures,  it  must  be  consid- 
ered as  fortunate  for  the  public  interests  that  attention  was  turned  to  these 
things  at  the  proper  time.  It  may  tend  to  arrest  that  tide  of  profligate  ex- 
penditure which  ebbs  and  flows  as  the  interest  or  caprice  of  office  holders- 
may  dictate,  and  which,  if  not  checked,  would  soon  exhaust  all  the  foun- 
tains of  the  nation's  wealth. 

As  if  the  evident  improprieties  connected  with  the  incipiency  of  this  mat- 
ter were  not  enough,  the  same  system  of  deception  has  been  continued, 
even  since  these  claims  have  been  before  Congress.  Mr.  Frazee,  the  ar- 
chitect and  superintendent,  was  made  the  agent  of  their  prosecution  here; 
and  he  was  informed,  immediately  upon  their  presentation,  that  they  could 
not  be  allowed  by  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  unless  he  furnished  them  with  evidence  of  the  authority 
given  the  collector  to  prosecute  the  work.  This  evidence  he  attempted  to 
furnish,  by  laying  before  the  chairman  of  the  committee  what  he  pretend- 
ed was  a  true  copy  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury  to  Walter  Bowne,  Esq., 
of  the  3d  of  March,  1S41,  (K.)    The  copy  was  as  follows  : 

Treasury  Department,  March  3,  1S41. 
Sir  :  The  Department  having  called  upon  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor 
at  New  York  to  report  their  joint  views  in  regard  to  the  difference  of  opin- 
ion existing  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Hoyt,  respecting  certain  matters 
connected  with  the  new  custom-house  building,  they  have  according > 
complied  with  my  request. 

In  accordance  with  their  recommendation,  I  deem  it  proper  to  authorize 
Mr.  John  Frazee  to  be  continued  in  the  situation  of  superintendent  and  ar- 
2 


18 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


chitect  of  the  building,  until  the  custom-house  and  the  furnishing  of  the  re- 
spective rooms  shall  have  been  completed.  And  it  is  desirable  that  Mr. 
Frazee's  plans,  for  the  interior  arrangements  of  the  building,  should  be 
carried  into  effect,  so  far,  especially,  as  regards  the  construction  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  fly-doors,  furniture,  and  the  painting  and  bronzing  of  the 
iron  work. 

J  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Walter  Bowne,  Esq., 

Commissioner  of  New  Custom- House,  N,  Y. 

The  House  will  not  have  forgotten  the  debate  which  arose  upon  the 
phraseology  of  this  letter,  nor  the  exposure  which  took  place  when  it  was 
detected  that  it  was  very  far  from  being  a  true  copy  of  the  original.  In- 
stead of  having  been  so  written  by  Mr.  Woodbury,  it  will  be  seen,  by 
reference  to  the  original,  that  it  contains  nothing  authorizing  the  "  construc- 
lioir'  of  the  work,  or  the  "  bronzing  of  the"  iron  work  ;  those  words  being 
interpolated  by  Frazee  in  his  fraudulent  copy.  The  committee  would  be 
gratified  if  they  could  confide  in  the  statement  of  Frazee,  made  on  12th 
May,  explaining  to  Mr.  Fillmore  (Z)  the  manner  in  which  he  wrote  this 
letter.  But  it  is  impossible  to  do  so,  when  it  is  perceived,  by  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Pro  flit,  that  he  informed  Frazee,  some  clays  before,  that  there 
was  no  such  authority  given  by  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter,  and  that  he  had 
examined  the  original  in  the  Treasury  Department.  After  this  fair  notice 
of  the  contents  of  the  letter,  no  other  than  a  fraudulent  motive  can  be  as- 
signed for  thus  writing  the  copy.  The  bills  could  not  be  passed  without  it, 
as  the  entire  authority  was  questioned,  and  the  bronzing  done  at  his  order 
constituted  an  enormous  item. 

To  secure  this  temporary  success,  he  perpetrated  this  most  deliberate 
fraud,  upon  which  the  committee  feel  no  inclination  to  dwell.  They  re- 
gret, also,  that  his  testimony  furnishes  no  excuse  or  palliation  of  the  act. 

One  item  in  the  account  submitted  to  the  committee  is  a  claim  of  Frazee 
for  services  up  to  the  1st  May,  1S41,  and  since  that  time.  In  the  aggre- 
gate it  amounts  to  $3,429,  besides  what  he  claims  for  expenses.  &c,  in  at- 
tending, at  Washington,  to  effect  the  adjustment  of  this  business  before  Con- 
gress. Under  no  circumstances  can  the  committee  feel  justified  in  allowing 
the  latter.  Nor  do  they  think  he  should  be  paid  any  thing  after  the  1st 
May,  1841,  as  it  was  upon  that  condition  that  he  was  continued  to  super- 
vise the  work.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  letter  of  April  7, 1841,  (Q.)  to  Mr.  Ewing, 
says  that  Mr.  Frazee  had  consented,  from  the  great  pride  which  he  felt  as 
the  architect  of  the  building,  to'"  superintend the  completion  of  the  build- 
ing, and  the  fitting  up  of  the  furniture,  without  compensation  after  the 
first  of  May"  Frazee  attempts  an  explanation  of  this  matter  in  his  testi- 
mony, but  he  exhibits  no  facts  which  authorize  the  committee  to  disregard 
his  original  promise,  especially  when  it  is  recollected  that  it  must  have  en- 
tered into  the  consideration  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  In  a  letter 
of  June  10,  1842,  (AA,)  to  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  Mr.  Curtis  also 
makes  an  explanation,  which  by  no  means  diminishes  the  force  of  the  in- 
formation in  his  letter  of  April  7,  1841.  There  was  nothing  in  that  of 
qualification  or  condition.  Indeed,  nothing  of  either  was  heard  until  it  be- 
came necessary  to  sap  the  public  Treasury.    If  the  Department  was  de- 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


19 


ceived  in  regard  to  what  Mr.  Frazee  did  say  to  Mr.  Curtis,  and  he  has 
thereby  been  the  sufferer,  he  has  his  remedy,  and  to  that  he  should  resort. 
The  committee  do  not  consider  that  he  has  any  claim  upon  the  Government 
beyond  $522,  for  his  services  up  to  May,  1S41,  which  is  the  amount  they 
have  reported. 

Mr.  Curtis  seems  desirous  that  the  committee  should  consider  that  Mr. 
Frazee  is  a  poor  man.  If  this  consideration  could  legitimately  belong  to 
this  investigation,  the  committee  could  possibly  have  no  interest  in  ex- 
cluding it.  But  it  does  not.  They  cannot  decide  questions  of  this  sort 
from  motives  of  kindness  or  humanity,  however  much  they  might  be  gov- 
erned by  these  in  the  ordinary  associations  of  life.  There  are  matters  of 
stern  justice,  in  which  the  interest  of  individuals  must  give  way  to  the  per- 
formance of  public  duty. 

The  claim  of  John  G.  Tibbetts,  filed  before  the  committee,  is  for  the  sum 
of  $9,327  72.  This  bill  is  for  iron  work — for  railing  and  desk  frames. 
The  price  at  which  these  things  are  charged  is  eighteen  and  a  half  cents 
per  pound,  at  which  price  he  was  originally  paid  for  iron  work  on  the 
building,  under  a  contract,  made  on  the  4th  January,  1S37,  with  the  Gov- 
ernment commissioners,  Messrs.  Bowne,  Ringgold,  and  Jackson,  (BB.)  He 
claims  that  he  should  now  be  paid  under  this  contract.  The  committee  do 
not  think  so.  One  condition  of  the  contract  was,  that  he  should  furnish  all 
the  "iron  work  required  for  the  building."  It  is  only  under  this  clause 
that  he  can  set  up  this  claim,  with  the  slightest  plausibility.  What  is  the 
iron  work  required  for  a  building?  It  is  certainly  not  furniture,  or  any 
thing  else  which  is  not  attached  to  the  building.  If  iron  desk  frames  were 
necessary  for  a  building,  so  would  be  a  shovel,  or  a  kettle,  or  a  chair,  or 
any  other  article  of  the  kind  ;  and  certainly  no  court  would  so  interpret  this 
contract  as  to  embrace  these  things. 

But  this  view  of  the  case  is  put  at  rest  by  the  facts  that  the  contract  with 
Bowne,  Ringgold,  and  Jackson,  had  expired,  and  they  were  no  longer  act- 
ing as  commissioners  ;  nor  had  they  any  successors.  If  there  had  been,  in- 
deed, their  successors  would  not  have  been  bound  by  the  contract,  for  the 
building  was  finished.  Suppose  the  furniture  had  not  been  made  for  ten 
years  from  that  time,  would  the  Government  have  been  bound  to  furnish 
Tibbetts  with  an  opportunity  of  making  it  ?  Certainly  not.  And  if  the  con- 
tract were  good,  as  to  him,  for  a  single  month,  it  would  have  been  forever, 
in  the  absence  of  revocation. 

But,  to  conclude  all  argument  or  cavil  on  this  subject,  the  testimony 
shows  that,  during  the  actual  existence  of  this  contract,  Tibbetts  was  paid 
25  cents  per  pound  for  the  sub-Treasury  safe  now  in  the  custom-house. 
The  committee  cannot  but  think  that  a  safe  of  that  sort  is  as  much  for  a 
building  as  furniture,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  for  this  misinterpretation 
of  the  contract.  One  of  the  commissioners  has  written  the  committee  that 
he  understands  the  contract  as  is  insisted  by  Mr.  Tibbetts,  but  the  committee 
must  respectfully  decline  the  adoption  of  his  opinions,  confining  themselves 
rather  to  the  legal  rules  of  interpretation. 

In  this  view  of  the  case,  the  committee  have  allowed  what  they  consider 
equitably  due  Mr.  Tibbetts,  notwithstanding  they  might  find  ample  justifi- 
cation in  dealing  much  more  rigidly  with  him,  from  the  fact  that  he  knew 
that  there  was  no  authority  of  law  for  any  of  the  work.  And  this  argu« 
ment  might,  indeed, be  applied  to  all  the  workmen;  for  Frazee  says, in  one 
of  his  letters,  that  he  so  informed  them  all.  The  committee,  however,  have 
taken  a  more  liberal  view  of  this  case,  and  have  adjusted  the  claim  accord  • 


20  dep.  No.  1065. 

ingly.  They  have  allowed  him,  taking  the  average  prices  fixed  by  the 
witnesses,  and  estimating  the  weight  of  the  work  as  in  Tibbetts's  bill,  but 
$6,365  92,  or  $2,961  80  less  than  he  claimed.  This  the  committee  think  a 
full  and  equitable  allowance, and  most  especially  when  he  sold  to  Mr.  Felt, 
one  of  the  witnesses,  desk  frames  of  precisely  the  same  sort  as  those  fur- 
nished the  custom-house  for  7£  cents  per  pound  ! 

Much  that  was  intended  as  evidence  has  been  laid  before  the  committee 
by  Mr.  Tibbetts,  in  regard  to  his  contract,  but  very  little  of  any  import,  and 
none  that  was  not  cx  parte,  except  the  parol  testimony  taken  before  the 
committee.  One  paper,  (CC,)  purporting  to  be  a  letter  from  the  commis- 
sioner, of  date  the  18th  April,  1S42,  was  a  private  letter  to  Mr.  Frazee, 
who  acknowledges  that  he  attached  to  the  name  of  Mr.  Talman  the  word* 
"commissioner  new  custom-house,  New  York,"  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
it  official  character,  and  using  it  as  evidence  !  Some  of  the  other  papers 
the  committee  have  attached. 

The  account  of  Mr.  John  Horspool,  as  filed  before  the  committee,  was  for 
$7,S65  50,  for  painting  and  bronzing  the  iron  work.  It  has  been  already 
shown  that  no  authority  was  ever  given  for  this  work,  and  that  it  was 
wholly  unauthorized.  The  only  authority  for  the  execution  of  the  work 
is  a  pretended  contract  with  Frazee,  the  architect,  (DD.)  The  committee 
can  give  no  such  construction  to  this  instrument  as  to  make  it  binding  on 
the  Government,  for  Frazee  had  no  power  to  contract.  But  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  believe  that  Horspool  acted  in  good  faith  in  supposing  the  con- 
tract binding,  and  therefore  they  have  allowed  him  the  amount  of  it, 
($4,350.)  The  balance  of  the  bill  they  regret  they  cannot  allow  ;  but,  by 
the  rule  they  have  adopted,  it  must  be  excluded,  as  it  is  totally  without  au- 
thority from  any  body  having  a  right  to  direct  it. 

The  amount  of  claims  filed  before  the  committee  is  S31,654  14.  No  evi- 
dence whatever  has  been  offered  them,  nor  have  they  any  explanation,  in 
regard  to  a  claim  of  Messrs.  Weiiman  &  Wykoff,  of  $501  50,  for  hard- 
ware. They  are  therefore  compelled  to  exclude  it  from  their  consideration. 
The  claims  of  the  mechanics  and  laborers  they  have  allowed,  without  re- 
duction, as  they  deem  it  impracticable  and  unnecessary  to  scrutinize  them 
as  they  had  done  the  others. 

The  following  amounts  they  have  reported  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury as  justly  due,  viz  : 
To  John  G.  Tibbetts,  for  iron  work  -  -  -      $6,365  92 

J.  Hodgkin,  painting  and  bronzing  ...  4,350  00 
Summer  &  Stevens,  galvanizing  -  324  00 

J.  Stone,  door  springs,  &c.  -  -  -  689  03 

S.  Shindler,  lumber  -----  l,9S5  74 
J.  R.  Walter,  plumbing-  -  -  -  -  138  60 

Gallier&  Murphy,  carving       -  -  -  -  289  2S 

0.  Gray,  materials,  &c.  -  -  -  -  -  95  88 

J.  L.  Piatt,  glass  lights  -  -  -  -  -  90  16 

G.  Thomas,  cartage       -  -  -  -  -  113  50 

H.  Mortman,  brushes,  &c.        -          -          -          -  15  5  J 
I).  Felt  &  Co.,  stationery         -                                           24  69 
T.  Funnigan,  sand       -          -          -          -          -  16  50 
Mechanics  and  laborers           -          -          -          -  6,746 
John  Frazee,  superintendence  -   522  00 

#21,768  46 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


21 


It  will  thus  be  perceived  that  the  committee  have  reduced  the  claims 
filed  $9,885  68.  Add  to  this  the  $7,382  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury has  withheld  from  Abraham  Storm,  at  their  request,  and  the  aggre- 
gate amount  saved  to  the  Government,  by  this  investigation,  is  #17,267  C8. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 


APPENDIX. 


A. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  September  12,  1840. 

Sir:  From  an  interview  I  had  to-day  with  the  receiver  general,  in  rela- 
tion to  fitting  up  his  room  in  the  new  custom-house,  I  am  reminded  to  ask 
you  from  what  fund  are  the  expenses  to  be  paid  for  furnishing  the  new 
building  with  what  furniture  will  be  required  ?  Are  they  to  be  paid  by  the 
commissioners,  and  charged  to  construction,  or  are  they  to  be  charged  to 
any  other,  and  what,  account  ? 

We  are  furnishing  th,e  building  to  completion  as  fast  as  possible,  and  the 
superintendent  has  frequently  called  upon  me  for  directions  as  to  the 
furniture. 

I  would  be  glad  of  an  answer  to  this  at  your  earliest  leisure.  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  a  proper  charge  for  the  construction,  and  to  be  paid  from 
the  appropriation. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


B. 

Treasury  Department,  September  14,  1840. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  in  reference  to  the  furniture  requir- 
ed for  the  new  custom-house,  has  been  received. 

In  regard  to  the  room  designed  for  the  accommodation  of  the  receiver 
general,  it  is  is  to  be  observed  that  he  has  already  been  authorized  to  pro- 
cure some  furniture  for  the  rooms  he  now  occupies  in  the  Bank  of  Ameri- 
ca, which  it  is  presumed  will  answer  for  his  new  quarters;  but  any 
further  articles  of  the  kind  which  may  be  needed  he  can  procure,  on  first 
advising  the  Department  of  what  is  required,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  appro- 
priation contained  in  the  Independent  Treasury  act  of  the  4th  of  July  last. 
The  expense  of  the  vault,  or  any  other  permanent  fixture  placed  in  his 
room,  should  be  charged  to  the  appropriation  for  the  construction  of  the 
custom-house  building. 

With  respect  to  the  furniture  required  for  the  other  portions  of  the  build- 
ing, no  expense  can  be  incurred  without  a  special  appropriation  having 
first  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose,  or  unless  the  officers  who 


22 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


occupy  the  rooms  should  think  proper  to  defray  such  expenses  out  of  their 
emoluments.  It  will,  in  any  other  event,  become  necessary  to  use  the  old 
furniture  now  in  the  custom-house.  The  appropriation  made  towards  the 
erection  of  the  building,  it  is  thought,  could  not  be  equally  appropriated, 
or  any  portion  of  it,  (while  the  building  itself  is  unfinished,)  for  the  object 
mentioned. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.. 

Collector ,  <$'C,  New  York. 


C. 

Custom-House  New  York,  November  10,  1S40. 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  27th  October,  stating  that  the  com- 
missioners of  the  new  custom  house  building  at  New  York  have  reported 
to  the  Department  that  the  building  was  completed  and  made  ready  for  the 
reception  of  the  officers  of  the  customs  in  this  district,  I  have  to  say  that, 
as  one  of  these  commissioners,  I  had  no  knowledge  that  such  a  report  was 
to  be  made,  and  if  I  had  known  it  I  could  not  have  concurred  in  it.  [ 
visited  the  building  yesterday,  with  the  naval  officer  and  several  of  the 
gentlemen  attached  to  this  office,  and  we  found  the  building  in  a  very  unfit 
state  for  our  reception,  as  well  for  the  reason  that  the  plastering  is  not  yet 
all  on,  as  because  of  the  extreme  dampness  of  the  rooms,  which  would  be 
so  prejudicial  to  health,  that  none  of  the  gentlemen  were  willing  to  risk  the 
exposure.  I  wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  Frazee,  the  superintendent,  this  morning, 
and  I  send  you  a  copy  of  his  reply. 

I  suggest  that  you  ask  Congress  for  an  appropriation  to  purchase  furni- 
ture for  the  building;  most  of  that  which  we  have  in  the  building  we  now 
occupy  is  wholly  unfit,  and  could  not  be  made  so,  for  the  reason  that  the 
shape  of  the  rooms  in  the  two  buildings  is  so  unlike.  I  think  it  would 
require  from  five  to  seven  thousand  dollars,  in  addition  to  the  furniture  we 
now  have  that  could  be  used,  to  fit  up  all  the  rooms.  I  think  the  appro- 
priation should  be  made  early  in  the  session,  to  the  end  that  all  suitable 
accommodation  should  be  afforded  for  the  transaction  of  the  public  business. 

Mr.  Frazee  is  of  opinion  that  a  larger  sum  would  be  required  than  I 
have  named,  and  his  judgment  probably  is  better  than  mine  in  that  matter. 
He  thinks  none  of  the  old  furniture  is  fit  to  be  used,  but  I  differ  in  opinion 
with  him  on  that  question. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


* 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


2a 


D. 

Treasury  Department,  November  13,  1S40. 
Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  enclosing  copy  of  one  addressed  to 
you  by  Mr.  Frazee,  architect  ot  the  new  custom-house  building,  has  beeu 
received. 

It  appearing  to  be  the  opinion  of  yourself  and  the  architect  that  the 
building  is  not  yet  in  a  suitable  condition  to  be  occupied  for  custom-house 
purposes,  your  removal  must  necessarily  be  postponed  for  the  present. 

In  regard  to  the  furniture  required  for  the  respective  rooms,  I  shall  be 
happy  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  consideration  of  the  appropriate  com- 
mittee at  the  meeting  of  Congress.  In  the  mean  time,  it  is  desirable  that 
Mr.  Frazee  should  furnish  the  Department  with  a  detailed  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  money  required  for  the  object  stated,  to  be  laid  before  the 
committee. 

I  am,  &.c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq., 

Collector.  8>-c. ,  New  York. 


E. 

CrvrOM-HousE,  New  York,  December  12,  1840. 

Sir  :  In  pursuance  of  the  request  in  your  letter  of  the  13th  November 
last,  I  now  forward  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frazee,  addressed  to  me,  enclos- 
ing an  estimate  made  by  Mr.  John  Horspool,for  the  furniture  of  the  new  cus- 
tom-house. I^have  retained  it  for  a  day  or  two,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
some  further  inquiries. 

This  estimate  overruns  what  I  had  formerly  stated  I  deemed  to  be  suffi- 
cient for  the  purpose.  In  expressing  my  own  views,  on  a  former  occasion, 
I  had  consulted  no  one,  but  it  was  from  a  very  superficial  knowledge  of  the 
subject.  The  estimate  now  sent  is  a  detailed  one,  and  such  as  I  presume 
you  desired.  I  still  think  that  $  15,000  would  be  sufficient.  I  do  not  con- 
cur with  Mr.  Frazee  in  the  opinion  expressed  by  him,  that  but  little  of  the 
old  furniture  can  be  used.  I  think  it  will  answer  for  the  smaller  rooms  in 
the  second  and  third  stories. 

I  am,  sir,  verv  respectfuilv,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


F. 

New  Custom-House,  New  York,  December  10,  1840. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  herewith  submit  you  Mr.  HorspooPs  estimate  for  the  cabi- 
net furniture  required  for  this  buiiding,  made  out  from  drawings  and  de- 


24 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


scriptions  given  by  me,  and  in  accordance  with  your  instructions,  and  the 
arrangements  made  by  yourself  and  the  principal  officers  of  the  different 
departments. 

Several  rooms  in  the  basement,  and  all  those  (ten  in  number)  in  the  attic, 
are  left  unnoticed  in  this  estimate,  which  you  will  perceive  amounts  to 
nearly  $19,000 ;  but  as  there  will  be  wanted  in  some  of  the  principal  offi- 
ces some  light  iron  railing,  also  some  little  upholstering,  and,  in  all  proba- 
bility, the  attic  rooms  will  require  cases  and  shelves — all  these  considered, 
and  it  being  well  ascertained  that  but  very  little  of  the  old  furniture  can, 
with  either  economy  or  propriety,  be  used — it  strikes  me,  therefore,  that,  to 
cover  the  entire  cost  of  all  the  furniture  required  to  furnish  every  depart- 
ment of  the  revenue  business  complete,  you  will  want  an  appropriation  of 
at  least  $20,000. 

As  you  are,  no  doubt,  anxious  to  have  every  thing  dene  that  can  be  done 
to  facilitate  your  coming  in  the  building,  why  not  have  men  employed  in 
makirig  the  furniture  without  delay,  in  anticipation  of  the  necessary  appro- 
priation being  duly  made  ?  Such  has  been  the  case  in  relation  to  other 
work  about  the  building,  and  why  not  pursue  the  same  course  in  this  ? 
But  it  rests  with  you  to  direct. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours,  &c. 

JOHN  FRAZEE. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


G. 

New  Yof.k.  December  9,  1S40. 
Sir  :  The  following  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  furniture  wanted  for  the 
new  custom-house  has  been  carefully  made  from  your  designs  and  descrip- 
tion of  the  various  articles  stated,  and  the  prices  are  put  quite  as  low  as- 
such  description  of  cabinet  work  can  be  done  for,  with  a  small  profit. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JOHN  HORSPOOL. 

Mr.  John  Frazee,  Architect,  §c. 


Sep.  No.  1065. 

ESTIMATE. 


25 


Surveyor's  room  in  basement. 

6  large  mahogany  book  cases,  filled  with  parti- 
tions, with  doors,  6  feet  6  inches  long,  6  feet  7 
inches  high, each  $9S  -  $588  00 

S  large  mahogany  book  cases,  13  feet  long,  each 

$196    ------     1,56-  00 

4  large  mahogany  writing  desks,  6  feet  6  inches 
long,  with  falls,  book  cases  below,  with  sepa- 
rate partitions  for  books,  each  $70 

4  large  mahogany  writing  desks,  12  feet  long,  to 
go  on  counter,  each  $95  - 

4  iarse  mahogany  writing  desks,  1 0  feet  long,  each 

$75  -  -  -  -         300  00 

8  mahogany  counters,  with  book  cases  under, 
with  separate  partitions  for  books,  each  $75 


Surveyor's  private  room. 

3  large  mahogany  book  cases,  10  feet  long,  filled 
with  partitions,  with  doors,  &c,  in  front,  each 
#147    -  -  -  -  - 

1  mahogany  desk  to  sit  to 

1  table,  (do.,)  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide,  with  draw- 
ers in  frames,  cloth  on  top  •  •" 


441  00 
45  00 

25  00 


Naval  office  on  principal  Jloor. 

3  large  mahogany  double  desks,  6  feet  long,  with 
writing  falls  and  book  cases  underneath,  with 
separate  partitions  for  books,  fronting  on  both 
sides,  each  $90  - 

3  large  mahogany  double  desks,  9  feet  long,  with 
drawers  on  each  side,  top  covered  in  cloth,  each 
$S3  -  -  -  -  -t      2  19  00 

2  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  11 
feet  high,  filled  with  pigeon  holes,  showing  12 
doors  in  front,  with  suitable  base  and  cornice, 
each  $400       -  -  -  -  m  c  00 

6  large  mahogany  book  cases,  6  feet  long,  11  feet 
high,  filled  with  pigeon  holes,  with  6  doors  in 
front,  and  writing  table  below,  with  drawers, 
top  covered  in  cloth,  each  $196  -  -      1,176  00 

1  large  book  case,  (mahogany,)  same  as  above,  but 

9  feet  long,  with  8  doors  above  -  -       294  00 


26 


Rep.  No.  1065. 

ESTIMATE— Continued!. 


Receiver's  room  on  principal  Jloor. 

3  large  book  cases,  as  above,  6  feet  long,  each 
#196  ------ 

4  mahogany  tables,  with  drawers,  top  covered  in 
cloth,  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide,  each  $25 

2  writing  desks  (low)  to  sit  to,  each  $45 
1  mahogany  counter,  40  feet  long,  with  panelled 
front,  rear  filled  in  with  drawers 


Collector's  room  on  principal  Jloor. 

2  mahogany  book  cases,  as  above,  6  feet  long,  G 

doors  each, each  #196  - 
2  mahogany  desks  to  sit  to,  each  $45 
1  mahogany  desk,  with  chair,  for  collector 


Three  rooms  on  principal  Jloor.  each  containing 

1  large  mahogany  book  case,  as  above,  6  feet 
long,  6  doors  - 

2  large  mahogany  tables,  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide, 
with  drawers  in  frame,  top  covered  with  cloth, 
each  $25         -  -  -  -  - 

Three  rooms  like  this 


Eastern  side  oj  rotunda,  principal  Jloor. 

2  large  mahogany  book  cases,  as  above,  6  feet 

long,  6  doors  each,  each  $196  - 
2  large  mahogany  desks  (low)  to  sit  to,  each  $45 


Rot  undo  in  centre. 

1  mahogany  octagon  book  case  in  centre,  S  feet 

high,  6  feet  diameter,  with  proper  cornice,  doors, 

cells,  &c.  - 
20  large  mahogany  circular  desks,  5  feet  long, 

with  drawers,  book  case  below,  with  partitions 

for  books,  each  $S0  - 


$58$  00 

100  00 
90  00 

275  00 


392  00 
90  00 
100  00 


196  00 


50  00 


246  00 


392  00 
90  00 


250  00 


1.600  00 


Rep.  No.  1065. 

ESTIMATE— Continued. 


27 


^     Auditor's  two  rooms  on  second  floor. 

12  large  mahogany  book  cases,  S  feet  long,  11 
feet  high,  filled  in  with  pigeon  holes,  with  6 
doors  in  front,  and  writing  tables  below,  with 
drawers  in  frame,  and  cloth  on  top,  each  $196 

4  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  12 
doors,  each  $400  - 

1  large  mahogany  book  case,  9  feet  long,  S  doors 

1  large  mahogany  ta*ble.  9  feet  long,  4  feet  6  inches 
wide,  with  drawers  in  the  frame,  cloth  on  top  - 

€  large  mahogany  double  desks,  6  feet  long,  with 
frame  on  top,  with  falls,  each  $74 

6  large  mahogany  double  desks,  9  feet  long,  with 
drawers  on  each  side,  top  covered  in  cloth, 
each  #84  - 

4  mahogany  tables,  6  feet  long  by  4  feet  6  inches 
wide,  top  covered  in  cloth,  each  $35  - 


Four  rooms  on  second  story ^  each  containing 

1  large  book  case,  as  above,  6  feet  long,  6  doors, 
&c.  

2  mahogany  tables,  with  drawers  in  frame,  and 
cloth  on  top,  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide,  each  $25 

Four  rooms  at  - 


Cashier's  room  on  principal  floor. 

1  mahogany  counter,  30  feet  long,  with  drawers, 
1  large  book  case,  13  feet  long,  as  above  describ- 
ed, but  with  12  doors,  - 
1  large  book  case,  6  feet  6  inches  long,  with  8 
doors  - 

1  mahogany  writing  desk,  4  feet  long,  with  fall, 
book  case  below,  with  separate  partitions  for 
books  ------ 


Amount 


52,352  00 

1,600  00 
294  00 

45  00 

444  00 

504  00 
140  00 


196  00 
50  00 


246  00 

196  00 
400  00 
226  00 

47  00 


$3,027  00 


9S4  00 


869  00 


1S,953  00 


28  Rep.  No.  1065. 

H. 

Treasury  Department,  February  17,  1S41. 

Sir  :  There  existing  a  difference  of  opinion  between  Walter  Bowne 
and  Jesse  Hoyt,  commissioners  for  the  new  custom-house,  in  regard  to  cer- 
tain matters  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  Department  by  Mr.  John 
Frazee,  superintendent  and  architect,  I  will  thank  you,  after  making  due 
examination  and  inquiry  into  the  questions  involved  in  the  controversy,  to 
report  to  me  your  opinions  on  the  respective  points  presented. 

The  enclosed  letters  from  Messrs.  Bowne  and  Hoyt  will  advise  you  of 
the  matters  in  dispute,  and  I  would  also  refer  you  to  my  letter  to  these 
gentlemen,  under  date  of  the  30th  ultimo,  containing  the  substance  of 
Mr.  Frazee's  views  in  the  case.  As  it  is  desirable  to  have  an  early  de- 
cision in  the  matter,  I  should  be  pleased  if  you  would  give  it  immediate 
attention. 

Please  to  return  the  enclosures  with  your  answer. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

William  S.  Coe,  Esq., 

Naval  Officer,  New  York. 


I. 

Treasury  Department,  February  22,  1841. 
Sir  :  I  regret  to  learn,  by  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  of  the  illness  of 
the  naval  officer,  which  renders  him  unable  to  attend  to  the  business  re- 
ferred to  in  my  letter  of  the  17th  instant.  I  should  be  pleased  if  the  sur- 
veyor and  yourself  would  investigate  the  matter,  and  report  to  me  the 
result. 

]  will  thank  you,  therefore,  to  show  the  surveyor  this  letter,  and  express 
to  him  the  desire  of  the  Department  that  he  may  consent  to  unite  with 
you  in  the  examination  of  the  matter  in  question. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Sccretdry  of  the  Treasury. 

G.  W.  Coe,  Esq., 

Deputy  Naval  Officer,  New  York. 


J. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  February  26,  1841. 
Sir  :  In  compliance  with  the  request  expressed  in  your  letter  of  the 
22d  instant,  the  undersigned  have  duly  investigated  the  matters  in  contro- 
versy between  Walter  Bowne  and  Jesse  Hoyt,  Esquires,  touching  the  com- 
pletion of  the  newcustom-house,  the  manner  of  finishing  certain  portions 
cf  the  work,  and  also  the  discharge  of  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect  and  su- 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


id 


perintendent  of  the  building,  we  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  views 
and  statements  as  the  result  of  our  investigations : 

1.  As  relates  to  the  building  being  finished. — We  have  been  satisfacto- 
rily informed  that  stonecutters,  masons,  carpenters,  painters,  ironworkers, 
and  laborers,  have  been  constantly  at  work  upon  the  building  during  the 
present  winter.  We  find  also  that  workmen  in  most  of  these  several 
branches  are  still  engaged  upon  the  building,  and  that  there  is  more  or 
less  work  to  be  done  in  the  several  branches  above  enumerated,  before  the 
building  can  be  considered  as  finished. 

2.  As  relates  to  the  dismissal  of  the  architect  and  superintendent.  Mr. 
Frazee. — It  is  our  most  deliberate  opinion  and  judgment  that  the  super::  - 
tendent  of  so  important  a  structure  as  the  new  custom-house  is  the  last 
person  that  should  be  discharged  from  the  work ;  for  we  hold  that  his  su- 
pervision over  every  part  of  the  work  is  necessary  to  the  well  finishing  of 
the  edifice,  and  also  to  ensure  public  confidence  in  its  perfect  completion. 
The  pay  list  of  the  workmen,  as  we  have  seen,  shows  that,  at  the  fime 
Mr.  Frazee  was  dismissed,  December  5,  1840,  there  were  upwards  of 
thirty  workmen  engaged  upon  the  building,  and  that  nearly  the  same 
number  were  continued  upon  the  work  for  several  weeks  afterwards  ;  and, 
as  has  already  been  stated,  a  number  of  workmen  are  still  employed  upon 
the  building.  Thus  it  appears  that,  during  a  period  of  nearly  two  mont 
this  important  edifice  has  been  progressing  towards  completion  without 
the  superintendence  of  any  person  properly  qualified  to  direct  the  wovl:- 
meri  in  the  various  and  difficult  branches  in  which  they  were  engaged.  In 
view  of  these  facts  and  considerations,  we  feel  constrained  to  regard  the 
resolution  of  Mr.  Bowne,  dismissing  the  architect  and  superintendent 
without  cause  or  provocation,  as  an  act  of  gross  injustice  to  one  of  the  first 
artists-  of  the  age,  as  well  as  detrimental  to  the  public  interests.  And  o>- 
there  appears  to  be  much  work  still  to  be  done  upon  the  building,  which 
requires  the  professional  skill  and  superintending  services  of  Mr.  Frazee, 
we  would  recommend  that  he  be  immediately  reinstated.  We  would  also 
most  respectfully  beg  leave  to  state  it  here  as  our  deliberate  opinion,  that 
justice  cannot  be  done  Mr.  Frazee  without  allowing  him  his  usual  com- 
pensation during  the  whole  interval  of  time  since  his  dismissal  on  the  5th 
December^  1S40,  he  having  been  improperly  dismissed  without  cause,  and 
thereby  unexpectedly  thrown  out  of  employment,  greatly  prejudicial  to 
his  interests. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  fly-doors,  constructed  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Bowne,  at  the  two  entrances,  we  would  state  that  we  fully  concur  in 
opinion  with  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Frazee,  that  the  constructing  of  the  wood- 
en doors  outside  of  the  iron  ones  greatly  impairs  the  beauty  and 
harmony  of  the  architecture  at  these  entrances;  besides,  they  are  so  ill 
constructed  as  entirely  to  defeat  the  objects  for  which  they  were  designed. 
We  would  therefore  recommend  that  they  be  taken  down,  and  that  proper 
casements  and  fly-doors  be  constructed,  by  the  direction  and  under  the  su- 
perintendence of  Mr.  Frazee. 

4.  With  respect  to  the  finish  to  be  put  upon  the  iron  work,  we  would 
remark  that,  in  our  opinion,  there  is  no  other  way  of  giving  to  it  a  finish 
in  suitable  keeping  with  the  other  parts  of  the  building  but  that  of  bronz 
ing;  and  such  is  the  general  opinion  expressed  here  by  all  those  whose 
attention  has  been  called  to  the  subject.  And  as  to  the  most  suitable  time 
for  putting  on  the  bronze  finish,  as  well  as  the  manner  and  style  of  its 


30 


R(p.  No.  1065. 


execution,  it  should,  we  conceive,  be  left  entirely  to  the  judgment  of  the 
architect. 

5.  In  reference  to  the  furniture,  we  would  state  that,  as  the  counters 
which  are  already  put  up  in  several  of  the  rooms,  however  objectionable 
they  may  be,  are  only  intended  for  temporary  use,  until  suitable  furniture 
can  be  made,  we  forbear  making  any  particular  remarks  on  tins  part  of 
the  subject.  We  would  observe,  however,  that  the  design  and  planning 
of  the  new  furniture,  agreeably  to  the  economy  and  arrangement  which 
may  be  suggested  by  the  ollicers  of  the  various  departments,  are  things 
which  should,  in  our  judgment,  command  the  taste,  skill,  and  superintend- 
ence of  the  architect  of  the  edifice,  and  that  he  also  be  permitted  to 
select  the  mechanics  who  are  to  execute  and  put  up  this  kind  of  work. 

The  foregoing  are  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have  arrived,  after  due 
investigation  and  reflection. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

GEORGE  W.  COE, 

Deputy  Naval  Officer. 
ELY  MOORE,  Surveyor. 

Hon.  Levi  Wtoodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  The  copies  of  the  reports  and  letters  enclosed  to  the  naval  officer 
are  herewith  returned. 


K. 

Treasury  Department,  March  3,  1841. 

Sir  :  The  Department  having  called  upon  the  deputy  naval  officer  and 
surveyor  at  New  York  to  report  their  joint  views  in  regard  to  the  differ- 
ence of  opinion  existing  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Hoyt  respecting  certain 
matters  connected  with  the  new  custom-house  building,  they  have  accord- 
ingly complied  with  my  request. 

In  accordance  with  their  recommendation,  I  deem  it  proper  to  authorize 
Mr.  John  Frazee  to  be  continued  in  the  situation  of  superintendent  and 
architect  of  the  building  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  general  ap- 
propriation bill  until  the  custom-house  and  the  furnishing  of  the  respective 
rooms  shall  have  been  completed  ;  and  it  is  desirable  that  Mr.  Frazee's 
plans  for  the  interior  arrangements  of  the  building  should  be  carried  into 
effect,  so  for  as  regards  the  arrangements  of  the  fly-doors,  furniture,  and 
painting  of  the  iron  work. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Walter  Bowne,  Esq., 

Commissioner,  fyc,  New  York. 


Eep.  No.  1065. 


31 


L. 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  Secretary. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  March  25,  1S41. 

Sir:  There  was  a  long-continued  controversy  between  John  Frazee, 
architect  of  the  new  custom-house,  and  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  the  acting 
commissioner.  The  late  Secretary,  after  much  inquiry  and  examination, 
decided  that  Mr.  Frazee  should  go  on  to  finish  the  custom-house,  and  fur- 
nish it  in  his  own  way,  and  without  the  interference  of  Mr.  Bowne,  who 
differs  in  opinion,  with  the  architect. 

[The  residue  of  the  letter  relates  to  other  topics.] 


M. 

Treasury  Department,  April  2,  1S41. 

S;r  :  I  transmit  herewith  copy  of  a  communication,  dated  12th  of  De- 
cember last,  and  addressed  to  my  predecessor,  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  late  collector, 
enclosing  a  schedule  and  estimate  of  the  cost  of  furniture  required  for  the 
new  custom-house. 

It  is  desirable  that  you  should  carefully  examine  the  subject,  and,  if 
necessary,  advise  with  some  person  familiar  with  such  matters,  with  the 
view  of  determining  whether  all  the  articles  specified  will  be  absolutely 
required,  and  also  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  prices  affixed  to  them. 

I  wish  you,  moreover,  to  ascertain  whether  some  of  the  old  furniture 
cannot  be  used,  as  suggested  in  Mr.  Hoyt's  letter,  and  report  to  me  your 
opinion  on  the  entire  subject  at  as  early  a  day  as  may  be  practicable. 
Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  EWING, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Edward  Curtis,  Esq., 

Collector,  New  York. 


N. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  1,  1S41. 
Sir  :  The  new  custom-house  is  nearly  completed ;  and  after  the  ap- 
proaching warm  weather  shall  have  dried  the  walls  a  little,  it  might  be 
occupied  even  before  it  be  entirely  completed.  The  collectors  have  always 
been  allowed  to  purchase  necessary  furniture  out  of  the  emoluments  of  the 
office.  If  the  fees,  &c,  at  this  time  (had  the  act  of  July  14, 1832,  not  gone 
into  effect)  would  be  sufficient  to  defray  all  the  ordinary  expenses,  and  also 
purchase  the  furniture  wanted  for  the  new  custom-house,  I  can  see  no 
reason  why  the  collector  may  not,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary, 
go  on  and  furnish  the  custom-house,  as  the  act  of  July  21,  1840,  reviving 
and  continuing  the  "  relief  section,"  as  it  has  been  termed,  places  at  the 
disposal  of  the  collector,  for  the  expenses  of  his  office,  the  same  amount  of 


32 


Rep.  No.  10C5. 


funds  that  he  would  have  had  under  the  operation  of  the  laws  as  they 
existed  prior  to  the  14th  of  July,  1S32. 

I  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  this  subject.  We  are  now  occupying 
four  stores  as  a  custom-house,  and  are  imminently  exposed  to  fire.  For 
the  want  of  light,  we  arc  obliged  to  burn  gas  in  many  of  the  rooms,  and 
our  papers  and  other  valuable  property,  as  well  as  books,  are  but  poorly 
secured.  The  late  collector  (Mr.  Hoyt)  has  frequently  represented  this 
subject  to  the  Department.  The  new  building  is  fire  pi  oof,  having  no 
wood  in  its  construction. 

If  you  will  give  me  authority,  I  will  proceed  to  furnish  the  building, 
pursuing  the  plan  proposed  by  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  to  the  late  Secre- 
tary, and  which  was  approved  by  him. 

The  Attorney  General,  on  his  recent  visit  to  this  city,  did  us  the  lienor 
to  pass  through  the  building  we  now  occupy,  and  I  respectfully  refer  you 
to  him  to  attest  the  insecurity  and  inconvenience  to  which  we  are  sub- 
jected. I  shall  of  course  observe  the  utmost  economy  in  furnishing  the 
new  house  consistent  with  the  plans  of  the  architect,  which,  I  have  before 
said,  were  approved  by  the  late  Secretary,  whose  letter  I  have  seen,  di- 
recting INIr.  Frazee  to  pursue  his  plan,  &c,  and  not  that  of  Mr.  Bowne. 

I  can  move  into  the  new  building  if  I  receive  an  order  to  pay  the  bills 
for  the  furniture,  as  I  have  suggested,  in  about  eight  or  ten  weeks  hence. 

I  shall  be  much  obliged  by  your  early  attention  to  this  subject. 

Very  respectfully, 

E.  CURTIS,  Collector, 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


0. 

Collector's  Office,  New  York,  December  A,  1841. 
Gentlemen:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit,  herewith,  my  answers  to 
the  5th,  6th,  7th,  Sth,  and  9th  questions  submitted  to  me. 
I  am,  gentlemen,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector, 

Messrs.  Poindexter,  ^ 

STEUART,and  v  Commissioners. 
Bradley,  ) 

5.  Question.  In  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  you  state  that  the  pay- 
ment of  $7,000  has  created  no  deficiency,  and  that  no  deficiency  exists  in 
the  amount  of  fees  and  emoluments  in  the  payment  of  the  charges  by  taw 
made  on  that  fund.  Be  pleased  to  state  the  aggregate  amount  of  fees  arid 
emoluments  for  each  year,  from  January  1,  1825,  to  30th  September  last, 
and  the  aggregate  amounts  of  clerk  hire,  fuel,  stationery,  and  other  inciden- 
tal expenses,  and  the  sum  or  sums,  if  any,  paid  into  the  Treasury  as  S  ur- 
plus fees  or  emoluments,"  in  each  year,  and  the  sum  or  sums  of  money,  if 
any,  paid  out  of  the  Treasury,  in  each  year,  to  make  up  deficiencies? 

Answer.  This  is  not  deemed  a  deficiency,  nor  can  it  be  so  considered, 
because,  whatever  the  tariff  act  of  July  14,  1S32,  has  taken  away,  the  sub- 
sequent annual  appropriation  acts,  and  the  now  permanent  appropriation 


Rep.  Xo.  1065. 


33 


act,  have  made  good.  When  any  item  of  expense  is  charged  to  the  fund 
derived  from  the  fees  and  emoluments  of  the  collector,  &c,  it  is  charged 
to  that  fund  which  is  composed  of  the  fees  and  emoluments  actually  col- 
lected at  the  custom-house  under  the  existing  tariff  laws,  together  with  a 
sum  annually  derived  from  the  Treasury  sufficient  to  preserve  the  whole 
fund  equal  to  what  it  would  have  been  if  all  the  fees  and  emoluments  had 
been  collected,  which  would  have  been  collected  had  not  the  tariff  of 
duties  been  modified  by  the  act  of  July  14,  1832.  It  was  under  the  ad- 
vice of  one  of  the  most  experienced  and  intelligent  persons  employed 
in  the  department  of  the  Treasury,  then  at  the  custom-house,  that  my 
letter  of  the  1st  of  April  suggested  to  the  Secretary  that  the  expense  of 
the  furniture  could  lawfully  be  charged  to  the  fund  derived  from  fees 
and  emoluments.  The  charge  of  the  §7,000  paid  for  furniture  can  be 
no  more  said  to  have  created  a  deficiency  m  that  fund  than  the  payment 
of  the  salaries  of  clerks,  or  the  payment  of  any  other  other  expense 
chargeable  upon  the  fund  to  a  like  amount  would  create  a  deficiency. 
At  the  time  of  that  payment  the  fees  actually  collected  for  this  year  far  ex- 
ceeded that  sum,  and  the  charge  of  the  cost  of  the  furniture  to  that  fund  of 
course  diminishes  that  fund,  but  does  not  create  a  deficiency.  All  expenses 
of  office  are  first  paid,  and  among  them  the  furniture  is  included,  and  for 
the  payment  of  salaries  resort  is  had  to  the  appropriation  act  if  necessary. 
The  required  statement  is  annexed. 

Statement  of  the  fees  and  emoluments,  and  of  the  expenditures  of  the 
collector's  office,  in  the  district  of  New  York,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  year  1825  to  the  termination  of  the  year  1840,  exhibiting  the 
sums  paid  into  the  Treasury  as  surplus,  and  also  the  sums  drawn  from 
the  Treasury  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  acts  of  Congress  con- 
sequent upon  the  tariff  act  of  July  14,  1832. 


Period  of  time. 

Fees  &  emol- 
uments col- 
lected under 

existing  laws. 

Expenditures. 

Payments  in- 
to the  Treas- 
ury. 

Drawn  from  the 
Treasury  to  make 
good  the  fees  and 
emolum'is  taken 
awav  bv  the  act 
of  July  14, 1832. 

1825 

#39,629  34 

$31,465 

06 

$8,164  28 

1826 

41,783  86 

31,771 

92 

10,011  94 

1827 

37,298  99 

32,887 

70 

4,411  29 

"1828 

40,869  29 

32,136 

90 

8,732  39 

1829* 

25,318  85 

24,176 

09 

1,142  76 

1830 

39,778  30 

39,778 

30 

1831 

57,983  94 

57,983 

94 

1832 

64,072  90 

64,072 

90 

J  833 

63,585  43 

76,414 

60 

$12,829  17 

1834 

42,187  34 

73,790 

18 

31,602  8i 

1835 

48,402  80 

73,574 

80 

25,172  00 

1836 

54,561  20 

77,278 

94 

$2,717  74 

1837 

33,331  83 

76,637 

70 

43,305  87 

1838 

39,038  69 

81,741 

17 

42,706  48 

1839 

49,631  92 

95,926 

67 

46,294  75 

"1840 

33,206  12 

93,961 

92 

60,755  80 

*  The  year  1829  is  only  from  1st  of  May,  when  a  change  of  collect  >r  took  ^lace;  the  previous 
part  of  the  year  cannot  be  found.    The  portion  of  the  year  1S41  is  n^t  give  1,  as  the  account  ii 
not  made  up  until  the  expiration  of  the  year. 
3 


34 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


6.  Question.  Are  there  any  officers  of  the  customs  appointed  by  you 
who  are  indebted  to  you  or  to  George  Curtis,  individually  or  jointly ;  and,  if 
so,  were  they  so  indebted  prior  to  their  appointments,  and  have  you  or  he 
received  any  payment  or  payments  in  extinguishment  of  such  debts? 

7.  Question.  Are  there  any  officers  of  the  customs  for  whom  you  are 
responsible  as  endorser  or  security,  or  for  whom  your  brother  George 
Curtis  was  so  responsible  ?  if  so,  state  whether  you  or  your  brother  George 
Curtis  have  received  payment  or  extinguishment  of  such  debt  for  which, 
you  or  the  said  George  Curtis  have  become  liable  as  endorser  or  security. 

Answer  to  the  6th  and  7th  questions.  One  answer  will  be  sufficient. 
.Both  questions  look  to  a  state  of  facts  which  may  be  equally  innocent, 
whether  they  required  affirmative  or  justified  negative  answers.  I  regard 
the  questions  as  without  import,  except  as  implying  a  charge  of  improper 
motive  on  my  part  in  the  making  of  appointments.  Regarding  them  in 
this  sense,  I  meet  the  whole  matter  by  a  full  denial  of  any  improper  mo- 
tive whatsoever  in  making  appointments  to  office ;  and  I  trust  the  com- 
mission will  yet  investigate  the  propriety  of  the  accusations  implied  in  the 
above  questions,  if  time  has  not  allowed  the  opportunity  during  the  last 
six  months. 

8.  Question.  Was  not  George  W.  Wells  removed  from  the  office  of  as- 
sistant cashier  by  direction  of  the  President  or  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ? 
and,  if  so,  you  will  please  state  the  date  of  his  removal.  You  will  also 
state  whether  you  have  appointed  him  to  any  other  office  of  the  customs, 
and  whether  such  appointment  was  made  with  the  approbation  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  first  had  and  obtained ;  if  so,  furnish  copies  of  the 
correspondence,  of  the  nomination  and  approval  of  said  Wells. 

Answer.  George  W.  Wells  was  not  removed  from  the  office  of  assist- 
ant cashier  by  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  nor  by 
order  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  By  my  written  report  to  the 
commissioners  of  17th  November  last,  they  were  advised  of  the  date  at 
which  George  W.  Wells  left  the  place  he  held  in  the  office  of  the  cash- 
ier, and  were  also  advised  that  he  was  on  the  15th  of  November  appointed 
by  me  to  fill  the  vacancy,  as  clerk,  made  by  resignation  of  Alexander 
Fleming.  The  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  not 
sought,  because  the  law  does  not  require  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary 
to  such  a  case. 

9.  Question.  Have  you  made  any  charges  to  the  President  or  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  against  the  official  acts  of  Jo- 
seph R.  Bleecker,  late  assistant  cashier,  or  against  his  private  character,  to 
justify  his  removal,  or  prevent  his  reappointment,  or  for  any  other  pur- 
pose ;  or  have  you  requested  any  other  person  to  exhibit  such  charges, 
either  to  the  President  or  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ?  If  yea,  furnish  the 
commissioners  with  a  copy  of  your  correspondence  on  this  subject :  and, 
if  not  in  your  possession,  state  particularly  the  substance  of  the  charges 
made  against  the  said  Joseph  R.  Bleecker. 

Answer.  I  have  not  "  requested  any  other  person/'  by  letter  or  other- 
wise, to  exhibit  charges  to  the  President  or  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, either  directly  or  indirectly,  against  the  official  acts  of  Joseph  R. 
Bleecker,  late  assistant  cashier,  or  against  his  private  character,  to  justify 
his  removal  or  prevent  his  reappointment,  or  for  any  other  purpose.  It 
would  be  very  hard,  I  think,  if  the  collector,  who  gives  bonds  for  a  large 
amount,  could  not  have  the  selection  of  his  own  confidential  agents  to  take 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


35 


charge  of  the  cash  transactions  of  his  office.  The  law  gives  him  this  priv- 
ilege, and  I  know  of  no  functionary  of  the  Government  who  can  lawfully 
interfere  with  the  discretion  of  the  collector  in  this  respect. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  fix  the  amount  of  the  compensation 
of  clerks,  but  has  no  control  over  the  selection  of  the  individuals.  All  offi- 
cers are  responsible  to  the  President,  for  justice  and  fair  dealing  towards 
these  subordinates :  but  the  law  does  not  permit  him  to  select  the  clerks  of 
the  collectors  of  the  revenue  ;  the  President  has  not  been  disposed  to  assert 
any  such  power,  so  far  as  I  know  or  believe.  He  has  never  directed  any 
person  to  be  removed  from  any  office,  nor  has  he  directed  any  person  to 
be  appointed  or  reappointed.  I  do  not  consider  that  I  am  bound  to  admit 
or  deny  that  I  have  had  private  correspondence  with  the  President  or  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  this  or  any  other  subject.  If  requested  by  the 
commissioners,  I  have  no  objection  to  state  why  I  should  not  now  consent 
to  the  reappointment  of  Mr.  Bleecker  as  a  clerk  in  this  department. 


P. 

Treasury  Department,  April  5,  1841. 
Sir:  In  consideration  of  the  circumstances  mentioned  in  your  letter  of 
the  1st  instant,  I  deem  it  proper  to  authorize  you  to  furnish  the  new  cus- 
tom-house plainly  and  substantially,  using  so  much  of  the  old  furniture 
as  may  be  convenient,  and  taking  care  to  exercise  proper  economy  in  the 
mattsr. 

Very  respectfully, 

T.  EWING, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Edward  Curtis,  Esq.,  Collector,  $c. 


Q. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  7,  1S41. 

Sir  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  2d  instant,  transmitting  to  me  a 
communication  made  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  Mr.  Woodbury, 
dated  the  12th  December  last,  accompanied  by  a  schedule  and  estimate  of 
the  cost  of  furniture  required  for  the  hew  custom-house.  I  am  now  di- 
rected to  examine  the  subject,  and  report  whether  all  the  articles  specified 
will  be  absolutely  required,  and  whether  the  prices  stated  are  reasonable, 

The  whole  of  the  furniture  specified  in  the  schedule  will  be  required  to 
furnish  the  several  departments  of  the  custom-house,  exclusive  of  the 
rooms,  ten  in  number,  in  the  third  story  of  the  building.  In  these  rooms, 
all  of  which  will  be  occupied,  the  old  and  dilapidated  furniture  now  in  use 
may  be  placed.  Some  of  it  is  fifty  years  old,  and  none  of  it  was  ever  fit  or 
appropriate  for  such  a  building  as  the  new  custom-house. 

In  addition  to  the  articles  mentioned  in  that  schedule,  some  little  expense 
must  accrue,  to  pay  for  cases,  shelves,  &c,  in  the  upper  stories  of  the  build- 
ing, for  the  safe  keeping  of  papers  and  books  ;  and  some  iron  railing  will 
be  required,  in  suitably  arranging  the  principal  offices  for  the  convenient 
transaction  of  business. 

I  do  not  find,  upon  inquiry,  that  the  prices  stated  in  the  schedule  are 


36 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


much  out  of  the  way,  but  I  do  not  expect  to  employ  the  person  who  made 
out  that  estimate,  and  have  no  doubt  I  shall  save  something  by  employ- 
ing other  persons. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Frazee, 
the  architect,  and  Mr.  Woodbury,  that  after  Mr  Frazee  furnished  the  late 
Secretary  with  this  schedule, "  made  from  drawings  and  descriptions  furnish- 
ed by  me,  [him.]  and  in  accordance  with  instructions  and  arrangements 
made  by  yourself  [Mr.  Woodbury,]  and  the  principal  officers  of  the  differ- 
ent departments  of  the  custom-house, "  a  question  arose,  whether  Mr. 
Frazee's  mode  and  plan  of  furnishing  should  be  adopted,  or  those  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Bowne,  the  commissioner.  The  correspondence  shows  that 
your  predecessor  adopted  that  of  Mr.  Frazee,  and  directed  him  to  go  on 
with  it. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  this  decision  of  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury ought  not  to  be  disturbed.  Mr.  Frazee  feels  a  just  pride  as  the  archi- 
tect of  the  building,  and  hence  his  consent  to  superintend  the  completion 
of  the  building  and  the  fitting  up  of  the  furniture,  without  compensation 
after  the  first  of  May. 

I  must  be  allowed  to  repeat,  that  the  insecurity  in  regard  to  fire  of  our 
present  condition  is  daily  more  impressed  upon  me.  In  cloudy  days  there 
is  not  a  room  in  the  building  in  which  artificial  light  is  not  required,  and 
in  the  principal  departments  of  the  collector  and  the  naval  officer  gas  lights 
are  daily  used  by  the  clerks.  From  the  nature  of  our  business,  great  masses 
of  papers  accumulate  rapidly,  and  must  be  retained  at  hand  for  constant 
reference.  The  establishment  is  now  a  vast  tinder  box. 
Very  respectfully,  &c. 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewtng, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  Since  the  foregoing  was  prepared,  I  have  received  your  letter  of 
the  5th  instant.  In  pursuance  of  that  instruction,  and  the  suggestions  of  this 
letter,  I  shall  forthwith  proceed  to  furnish  the  new  custom-house. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1S41. 

Sir  :  The  four  large  stores  at  present  occupied  as  a  custom-house  were 
formerly  rented  by  the  United  States,  paying  therefor  an  annual  rent  of 
four  thousand  dollars  each,  and  the  taxes,  amounting  in  addition  to  some 
four  hundred  dollars.  Last  year  Mr.  Hoyt  rented  the  same  stores  by  the 
month,  at  the  rate  of  three  thousand  dollars  rent  per  year. 

The  universal  custom  in  this  city  is  to  rent  all  tenements  from  1st  May 
to  1st  May  following.  I  have  kept  on  foot  a  negotiation  with  Mr.  David 
Low,  who  owns  two  of  these  stores,  and  has  charge  of  the  other  two, 
ever  since  I  came  into  office,  with  a  view  to  continue  our  occupation  of 
these  buildings,  paying  rent  by  the  month,  and  with  the  right  to  quit  when 
it  suited  us  to  go  into  the  new  building.  Having  recently  obtained  au- 
thority to  finish  the  new  custom-house,  I  was  the  more  anxious  to  rent  the 
stores  by  the  month,  but  Mr.  Low  seems  to  well  understand  two  things  : 
first,  that  we  cannot  move  into  the  new  building  on  the  1st  May  ;  and, 
second;  that  it  is  out  of  the  question  to  quit  his  stores  and  go  to  other  tene- 


Eep.  No.  1065. 


37 


merits  for  the  period  to  intervene  between  the  first  of  May  and  the  time 
■when  the  furniture  will  enable  us  to  go  into  the  new  custom-house.  He 
has,  therefore,  obstinately  declined  renting  the  stores  by  the  month,  and 
has  insisted  upon  our  taking  them  for  the  year,  or  not  at  all,  and  at  the 
same  rent  paid  last  year. 

Yesterday,  upon  "threatening  to  do  the  impossible  thing  of  moving  into 
other  stores,  which  perhaps  might  or  might  not  be  obtained,  he  finally 
came  to  this  :  that  we  might  take  two  of  the  stores  for  one  year  at  the  same 
rent  as  last  year,  and  the  other  two  for  three  months,  at  the  like  rate  per 
annum,  and  to  pay  taxes  instead  of  the  United  States  as  last  year.  I  gave 
him  to  understand  that  I  would  accede  to  this  proposition,  for  in  truth  we 
can  do  no  better,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed. 

Mr.  Storm,  who  has  taken  the  contract  to  furnish  the  custom-house,  will 
put  on  40  or  50  hands  to  the  work :  and  yet  he  will  not  probably  com- 
plete the  furniture  so  that  we  can  move  in  much  before  the  month  of  Au- 
gust ;  and  the  physicians  tell  me  there  must  be  three  months  of  summer 
heat  upon  the  new  custom-house,  before  its  walls  will  be  dry  enough  to  be 
safely  occupied. 

We  shall,  therefore,  pay  for  two  of  the  stores  no  longer  than  we  occupy 
them  ;  and  as  to  the  other  two,  which  will  be  vacant  after  the  1st  of  August, 
and  on  our  hands,  I  hope  either  to  re-let  them  to  others,  or  to  use  them  in 
lieu  of  some  other  stores  now  used  by  the  United  States.  Had  the  work  of  fur- 
nishing the  new  custom-house  been  commenced,  as  well  it  might  have 
been,  last  winter,  then  we  should  not  have  been  at  the  mercy  of  our  land- 
lord. 

Having  done  the  best  I  can  for  the  Government,  and  acted  in  this  as  if 
it  were  my  own  afTair,  I  see  no  way  but  to  submit  to  the  necessity  of  our 
condition  with  Mr.  Low.  The  annual  rent  is  greater  than  it  ought  to  be, 
or  would  be  to  an  individual  as  an  occupant,  and  he  puts  upon  us  two 
stores  nine  months  longer  than  I  would  have  hired  them,  though  they  may 
not  be  lost  to  us  ;  and,  if  I  could  have  devised  any  way  to  have  escaped  his 
terms,  I  should  have  rejoiced  to  have  defeated  his  purposes. 

The  Department  can  appreciate  the  facts  which  I  have  stated,  and  will 
see  that  I  have  yielded  to  a  necessity  which  will  probably  compel  its  sanc- 
tion to  my  reluctant  acts. 

I  am,  &c. 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


R. 

New  York,  April  10,  1S41. 
Sir  :  I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  proceed  to  fur 
nish  the  custom-house.  The  plan  and  style  of  furnishing  was  settled  by 
Mr.  Woodbury,  the  late  Secretary,  who  approved  of  the  drawings  laid  be- 
fore him  by  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  and  decided  in  favor  of  his  plan  and 
style  of  furnishing,  in  preference  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Walter  Bowne,  the 
commissioner  of  the  custom-house.  I  wish  you  to  assist  me  ;  for  although 
I  have  made  inquiry  among  the  cabinet  makers,  yet  I  have  not  the  time 


38  Rep.  No.  1065. 


personally  to  make  full  inquiry,  nor  to  go  through  the  whole  operation  of 
talking  the  matter  through  to  the  end  with  half  a  dozen  contending  me- 
chanics. You  must  do  this.  In  order  that  you  may  understand  and  be  able 
to  make  others  understand,  I  send  you  the  estimate  of  the  furniture  requir- 
ed, made  out  by  Mr.  Horspool,  and  which  were  forwarded  by  Mr.  Hoyt 
and  Mr.  Frazee  to  Mr.  Woodbury.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  pay  the  prices 
estimated  by  Mr.  Horspool ;  indeed,  from  my  inquiry,  I  do  not  think  I  shall 
be  compelled  to  go  up  to  these  prices.  If  you  cannot,  however,  find  some 
one  who  will  do  the  work  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  and  with  despatch, 
for  less  than  Horspool  asks,  then  he  must  have  the  contract ;  but  you  must 
avoid  this. 

You  must  understand  that  the  work  must  be  of  the  best  quality,  and 
with  a  right  on  my  part  to  reject  any  or  all  of  the  work  which  the  archi- 
tect and  myself  shall  consider  unfit  or  defective. 

You  will  call  the  manufacturers  to  the  new  custom-house,  and  there 
with  them  wait  upon  Mr.  Frazee,  who  will  exhibit  the  plans  and  draw- 
ings of  the  furnituie  to  be  made. 

Under  his  directions  and  superintendence,  and  to  his  satisfaction,  the 
whole  work  must  be  done,  as  to  quality  of  wood  and  workmanship  ;  and  it 
must  be  done  in  the  most  expeditious  manner  consistent  with  good  work- 
manship. 

When  you  are  prepared  with  any  man  or  men  with  whom  you  think, 
upon  the  whole,  it  will  be  most  prudent  to  contract  for  all  the  work,  or  a 
portion  of  it,  bring  the  men  to  me,  and,  if  I  am  satisfied  with  the  prices, 
as  I  presume  I  shall  be  satisfied  with  your  judgment,  I  will  close  the  con- 
tract. 

For  your  services  in  this  matter  I  will  pay  you  any  reasonable  charge. 
Let  me  hear  from  you  forthwith. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  &c. 

EDWARD  CURTIS. 

Mr.  Joseph  Hough. 


S. 

New  York,  rfpril  20,  1841. 

Sir  :  In  compliance  with  your  request  in  your  letter  to  me  of  the  10th 
instant,  I  have  made  inquiry  among  the  cabinet  makers,  and  have  finally 
selected  Mr.  Abraham  Storm,  as  one  likely  to  give  satisfaction,  both  as  to 
style  of  work  and  economy  in  expense,  and  have  his  estimate  for  furnish- 
ing the  new  custom-house,  which  I  herewith  hand  you. 

This  estimate  is  made  on  the  list  and  description  of  articles,  as  made  by 
Mr.  Frazee.  If  this  estimate  should  be  found  satisfactory,  Mr.  Storm  is 
ready  to  commence  work  at  once,  with  sufficient  help  to  complete  the  job 
in  the  shortest  time  possible. 

Any  variation  from  the  list  and  description,  as  given  by  Mr.  Frazee, 
will  be  done  at  the  same  relative  cost. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOUGH. 

Hon.  Edward  Curtis. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


39 


T. 

Articles  of  agreement  between  Edward  Curtis,  collector  of  the  port  of 
Neio  York,  of  the  one  part,  and  Abraham  Storm,  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  cabinet  maker,  of  the  other  part. 

It  is  agreed  as  follows  : 

First.  The  said  Abraham  Storm  agrees  to  furnish  the  new  custom-house, 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  with  furniture,  according  to  the  description  and 
at  the  prices  contained  in  the  schedule  hereunto  annexed. 

Second.  The  said  Abraham  Storm  agrees  that  the  said  furniture  shall  be 
composed  of  the  very  best  materials  and  workmanship. 

Third.  The  said  Abraham  Storm  agrees  that  the  said  furniture  shall  be 
manufactured  in  conformity  with  the  plans,  drawings,  and  directions  of  Mr. 
Frazee,  the  architect  of  the  custom-house. 

Fourth.  The  said  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector,  reserves  to  himself  the 
right  to  dispense  with  any  portion  of  the  work  contained  in  the  annexed 
estimate  ;  also,  the  right  to  vary  from  the  said  estimate  ;  and,  in  case  of 
variation,  the  prices  ot  the  substituted  work  are  to  conform,  as  near  as  may 
be,  to  the  prices  of  the  within  estimate,  according  to  their  relative  value. 

Fifth.  The  said  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector,  reserves  to  himself  the 
right  to  reject  any  portion  of  the  said  work  which,  in  his  opinion,  and  in 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect  of  the  custom-house,  shall  be  defi- 
cient in  point  of  form,  material,  or  workmanship. 

Sixth.  The  said  Abraham  Storm  agrees  to  proceed  immediately  with  the 
manufacture  of  the  said  furniture,  and  to  complete  the  same  with  all  the 
despatch  which  is  consistent  with  a  faithful  execution  of  this  contract. 

Seventh.  The  said  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector,  agrees  to  make  payment 
to  the  said  Abraham  Storm,  according  to  the  annexed  estimate  and  the 
terms  of  this  contract,  so  fast  as  the  said  furniture,  or  any  portion  thereof, 
shall  be  delivered  and  approved  of  by  the  said  Edward  Curtis,  the  collect- 
or, and  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect. 

In  testimony  whereof,  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hands  and  seals,  this 
24th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1S41. 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector,  [l.  s.] 
ABRAHAM  STORM.  [l.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of — 
George  Curtis. 


SCHEDULE. 


Surveyor's  room  in  basement. 

6  large  mahogany  book  cases,  filled  with  parti- 
tions, with  doors,  6  feet  6  inches  long  and 
high, each  $98  - 

8  large  mahogany  book  cases,  13  feet  long,  each 
$192  -  -  - 


$588  00 
1,536  00 


Rep.  No.  1065. 

SCHEDULE— Continued. 


Surveyor's  office — continued. 

4  large  mahogany  writing  desks,  6  feet  6  inches 
long,  with  falls,  book  case  below,  with  sep- 
arate partitions  for  books,  each  #68 

4  large  mahogany  writing  desks,  12 "feet  long, 
to  go  on  counters,  each  $92 

4  large  mahogany  writing  desks,  10  feet  long, 
each  $75  - 

8  mahogany  counters,  with  book  cases  under, 
with  separate  partitions  for  books,  each  #72 

Surveyor's  private  room. 

3  large  mahogany  book  cases,  10  feet  long, 
filled  with  partitions,  with  doors,  &c,  in  front 
1  mahogany  desk  to  sit  to  - 

1  mahogany  table,  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide,  with 
drawers  in  frame,  cloth  on  top 

Naval  office  oji  principal  floor, 

3  large  mahogany  double  cases,  6  feet,  with 
writing  tables  and  book  cases  underneath, 
with  separate  partitions  for  books,  fronting 
on  both  sides,  each  #90  ... 

3  large  mahogany  desks,  double,  9  feet  long, 
with  drawers  on  each  side,  top  covered  with 
cloth,  each  $81 

2  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  11 
feet  high,  filled  with  pigeon  holes,  showing 
12  doors  in  front,  with  suitable  case  and  cor- 
nice, each  #396  - 

6  large  mahogany  book  cases,  6  feet  long,  11 
feet  high,  filled  with  pigeon  holes,  with  6 
doors  in  front  and  writing  table  below,  with 
drawers,  top  covered  in  cloth,  each  #192 

1  large  book  case,  mahogany,  same  as  above, 
but  9  feet  long,  with  8  doors  above 

Receiver's  room  on  principal  floor. 

3  large  book  cases,  as  above,  6  feet  long,  each 
#194  - 

4  mahogany  tables,  with  drawers,  top  covered 
in  cloth,  5  feet  long.  3  feet  wide,  each  #25  - 

2  writing  desks  (low)  to  sit  to,  each  #45 

1  mahogany  counter,  40  feet  long,  with  panels 
front,  rear  filled  with  drawers 


#272  00 
36S  00 
300  00 
576  00 


435  00 
45  00 

25  00 


270  00 


243  00 


92  00 


1,152  00 


290  00 


5S2  00 

100  00 
90  00 

270  00 


1,332  00 


Rep.  No.  1065. 

SCHEDULE — Continued. 


41 


Cashier's  room  on  principal  floor. 

1  mahogany  counter,  30  feet  long,  with  draw- 
ers, &C.       -  -  -  -  -  I    #195  00 

1  large  book  case,  13  feet  long,  as  above  de-  ! 

scribed,  but  with  12  doors    -  -  -  I      396  00 

1  large  book  case,  6  feet  6  inches  long,  with  8 

doors  -  -  -  -  -        220  00 

1  mahogany  writing  desk,  4  feet  long,  with  full  \ 

book  case  below,  with  separate  partitions  for  j 

books         -  -  -  -  -  I       45  00 


Collector's  room  on  principal  floor. 

2  mahogany  book  cases,  as  above,  6  feet  long. 

6  doors,  each  $192  - 
2  desks  to  sit  to,  each  $45 
1  desk,  with  chair,  for  collector 


Three  rooms  on  principal  floor,  each — 

1  large  mahogany  book  case,  as  above,  6  feet 
long,  6  doors  - 

2  large  mahogany  tables,  5  feet  long,  3  feet 
wide,  with  drawers  in  frame,  top  covered 
with  cloth,  each  $25  ... 

Three  rooms,  each 


Eastern  side  of  rotundo,  principal  floor. 

2  large  mahogany  book  cases,  as  above,  6\feet 

long,  6  doors,  each  $192  - 
2  large  mahogany  desks  (low)  to  sit  to,  each  $45 


Rotundo  in  centre. 

1  mahogany  octagon  book  case  in  centre,  8  feet 
high,  6  feet  in  diameter,  with  proper  cornice, 
doors,  cells,  &c.  - 

20  large  circular  mahogany  desks,  5  feet  long, 
with  drawers,  book  case  below,  with  parti- 
tions for  books,  each,  $77  - 


384  00 
90  00 
75  00 


192  00 


50  00 


242  00 


384  00 
90  00 


245  00 


42 


Rep.  No.  1065. 

SCHEDULE — Continued. 


Auditor's  two  rooms  on  second  floor 


12  large  mahogany  book  cases,  6  feet  long,  11 
feet  high,  filled  in  with  pigeon  holes,  with  6 
doors  in  front,  and  writing  table  below,  with 
drawers  in  frame,  cloth  on  top,  each  $192  - 

4  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  12 
doors  each,  each  $396  ... 

1  large  mahogany  book  case,  9  feet  long,  8 
doors  - 

1  large  mahogany  table,  9  feet  long,  4  feet  6 
inches  wide,  with  drawers  in  frame,  cloth  on- 
top  ------ 

6  large  mahogany  double  desks,  G  feet  long, 
with  frame  on  top,  with  falls,  each  $70 

6  large  mahogany  double  desks,  with  drawers 
on  each  side,  top  covered  with  cloth,  each 
$80  - 

4  mahogany  tables,  6  feet  long,  4  feet  6  inches 
wide,  top  covered  in  cloth,  each  $35 


$2,304  00 


1,584  00 


290  00 


45  00 


420  00 


4S0  00 


1  10  00 


Four  rooms  in  second  story,  each — 

1  large  book  case,  as  above,  6  feet  long,  6  doors 

2  mahogany  tables,  with  drawers  in  frame, 
cloth  on  top,  5  feet  long,  3  feet  wide,  each  $25 


Four  rooms,  each 


242  00 


Amount 


U. 

Washington,  June  8,  1842. 
We  the  undersigned,  do  certify  that  we  have  been  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Joseph  Hough,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  for  many  years  past,  and  do  not 
hesitate  to  bear  our  testimony  to  his  high  character  for  integrity,  intelli- 
gence, and  general  business  habits  and  capacity. 

SILAS  WRIGHT,  Jr. 
SAMUEL  S.  PHELPS. 
WILLIAM  SLADE. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


43 


V. 

Washington,  June  8,  1842. 

Sir  :  Understanding  that  testimony  has  been  taken,  before  the  commit- 
tee of  which  you  have  the  honor  to  be  chairman,  touching  the  furnishing 
of  the  New  York  custom-house,  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  be  kind 
enough  either  to  state  to  me  the  substance  of  such  testimony,  or  exhibit  to 
me  the  testimony  itself,  to  the  end  that  I  may  take  such  steps  as  may  be 
deemed  necessary,  on  the  part  of  my  brother,  the  present  collector,  in  case 
it  shall  appear  that  he  is  in  any  way  implicated  by  such  testimony. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  CURTIS. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  of  Select  Committee  H.  B. 


W. 

Committee  Room,  June  8,  1S42. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  this  morning,  requesting  me  to  inform  you  of  the- 
substance  of  the  testimony  taken  before  the  committee  of  which  I  am 
chairman,  in  relation  to  the  furnishing  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  or 
requesting  a  personal  examination  of  it,  has  been  laid  before  the  commit- 
tee, and  I  am  authorized  to  say  that  an  opportunity  will  be  very  cheerfully 
afforded  you  of  making  such  examination. 

The  committee  are  exceedingly  desirous  of  understanding  truly  all  the 
circumstances  connected  with  their  investigation,  and  will  afford  all  proper 
means  of  a  full  development  of  them. 

I  am,  very  respectfullv,  your  obedient  servant, 

R.  W.  THOMPSON,  Chairman. 

George  Curtis,  Esq.,  Present. 


X. 

Collector's  Office,  New  York,  May  30,  1842. 

Sir  :  Mr.  Storm,  the  maker  of  the  mahogany  furniture  for  the  collect- 
or's office,  the  naval  office,  the  surveyor's  office,  and  the  various  apart- 
ments of  the  custom-house,  has  delivered  all  the  furniture,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  some  minor  articles,  and  has  this  day  delivered  to  me  his  final  bill, 
which  I  forward  to  the  Department. 

Having  seen  it  stated  that  no  authority  has  been  given  to  furnish  the 
custom-house,  except  a  simple  order  to  the  collector  to  furnish  the  building 
"plainly  and  substantially,"  I  will  advert  to  the  circumstances  relating  to 
this  subject. 

This  work  has  been  done  under  the  contract  entered  into  by  me  with 
Mr.  Storm,  on  the  24th  of  April,  1841,  in  pursuance  of  the  correspondence 
on  this  subject,  consisting  of  the  letters  of  your  predecessor  of  the  2d  and 
5th  of  April,  and  of  mine  to  him  of  the  1st  and  7th  April,  1841 ;  reference 
being  had  also  to  the  schedules  and  estimates  of  furniture  (amounting  to 
about  nineteen  thousand  dollars,  by  the  estimate  of  Mr.  Horspool)  transmit- 
ted to  me  by  the  Department  in  the  letter  of  the  2d  of  April.  The  contract 
gives  to  Mr.  Frazee,  the  superintendent  and  architect,  such  control  over  the 


44 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


subject  as  he  claimed,  and  I  considered  him  possessed  of,  and  entitled  to, 
by  the  terms  of  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  to  Mr.  Frazee,  of  the  3d  of 
March,  1841,  enclosing  a  copy  of  his  letter  of  that  date  to  Walter  Bowne, 
commissioner,  " continuing  Mr.  Frazee  in  the  oflice  of  superintendent  and 
architect  until  the  finishing  and  furnishing  of  the  respective  rooms  shall 
have  been  completed  and  stating,  also,  "  that  it  is  desirable  that  Mr. 
Frazee's  plans  for  the  interior  arrangements  of  the  building  should  be  car- 
ried into  effect,  so  far  as  regards  the  ily-doors,  furniture,  and  painting  of 
the  iron  work." 

That  the  late  Secretary  well  understood  that  I  did  not  intend  to  take 
upon  myself  the  powers  delegated  to  Mr.  Frazee,  as  superintendent  and 
architect,  in  respect  to  the  furnishing  of  the  building  erected  by  him,  is 
apparent  from  the  tenor  of  the  correspondence  ;  and  how  I  understood 
the  authority  of  the  letter  of  the  2d  of  April  is  manifest  by  the  postscript 
to  mine  of  the  7th  of  April.  His  letter  of  the  2d  of  April  was  written 
before  mine  of  the  1st  was  received  by  him,  and  these  letters  crossed  in 
the  mails. 

I  have  always  considered  myself  restricted,  as  to  payments,  to  the 
amount  of  the  contract ;  and  that  any  changes  which  the  architect  might 
adopt  in  the  furniture,  or  whatever  his  plans  might  be,  the  compensation 
to  Mr.  Storm  could  not  exceed  the  sum  stated  in  the  contract ;  and  so  I 
supposed  the  matter  to  be  understood  both  by  the  architect  and  Mr.  Storm, 
until  after  the  naval  oiiice  was  furnished,  when  I  learned  that  material 
changes,  calculated  to  enhance  the  expense  beyond  the  contract,  had  been 
ordered  by  the  architect  and  complied  with  by  Mr.  Storm,  and  additional 
articles  ordered  to  be  made.  I  then  called  upon  Mr.  Storm,  and  regret- 
ted to  find  that  it  was  too  late  to  retrace  his  steps  in  respect  to  these  modi- 
fications, and  in  regard  to  the  additional  furniture  ;  and  that  these  modifi- 
cations had  been  adopted  in  the  furniture  already  delivered,  and  in  respect 
to  that  portion  also  which  was  not  yet  finished.  I  notified  him,  how- 
ever, distinctly,  that  I  had  no  power  to  exceed  the  maximum  compensa- 
tion in  the  contract,  and  that  the  furniture  must  be  delivered  at  his  risk, 
for  any  excess  beyond  the  contract  aggregate.  At  different  times,  as  the 
work  has  progressed,  Mr.  Storm  has  received  payments,  and  the  full 
amount  provided  for  in  the  contract  has  been  paid.  You  will  see  that  his 
account  exceeds  this  sum  by  several  thousand  dollars — the  excess  is  re- 
ferable to  an  increase  in  the  dimensions  and  number  of  articles  of  furniture 
originally  contemplated  to  be  required,  and  material  modifications  in  the 
style  and  plan  of  the  furniture,  and  chiefly  that  of  adding  glass  doors  to 
all  the  cases,  and  brass  railing  to  the  tops  of  the  desks.  In  my  letter  of 
the  16th  of  February  last,  I  advised  you,  by  transmitting  a  copy  of  corres- 
pondence between  Mr.  Frazee  and  myself,  that  with  regard  to  the  iron 
standards  on  which  the  desks  and  cases  are  secured,  I  have  had  no  agency 
or  responsibility ;  this  matter  has,  with  the  mason  work,  iron  railing,  car- 
penters' work  in  making  the  fly-doors,  other  wood  work  of  the  building, 
and  the  painting  and  bronzing,  been  conducted  by  the  architect  since  the 
3d  of  March,  1841,  and,  of  course,  without  my  interference.  The  apart- 
ments of  the  naval  officer  and  the  surveyor  are  provided  with  such  arti- 
cles of  furniture  as  those  gentlemen  thought  requisite  and  proper  ;  and 
the  whole  work  has  been  done  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  in  respect  to 
materials  and  workmanship.  No  work  can  be  more  substantial  ;  and, 
though  not  so  plain  as  it  might  have  been,  is  as  plain  as  is  consistent  with 


Rep.  Xo.  1065. 


45 


the  style  of  the  building  in  which  it  is  placed.  But  you  have  seen  it  very 
recently,  and  can  judge  of  the  fitness  of  its  character  and  appearance.  I 
know  of  no  candid  person  who  regards  it  as  inappropriate.  Such  of  the 
old  furniture  as  is  fit  is  in  use. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  To  evince  the  opinion  of  the  merchants  dealing  with  the  cus- 
tom-house, I  send  a  statement,  signed  this  morning,  by  fourteen  among 
the  most  eminent  of  the  importers  and  ship-owners.  The  signatures 
might  have  been  extended  to  hundreds.  No  person  will  dissent  from  this 
expression,  after  an  examination  of  the  furniture.  It  is  submitted  as  evi- 
dence that  the  furniture  is  appropriate,  and  not  extravagant. 

E.  C. 


Y. 

June  17,  1S42. 

Dear  Sir  :  1  am  in  trouble  in  regard  to  money  matters ;  and  unless  I 
can  get  some  from  you,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  close  my  business,  for  to 
meet  my  liabilities  I  cannot.  I  therefore  hope  you  will  do  something  in 
the  matter  this  week.  I  have  been  threatened  to  be  prosecuted  if  I  don't 
pay  this  week.  Persons  are  clamorous  ;  they  think  that,  as  I  have  been  to 
work  for  the  Government,  I  must  have  money.  1  have  rendered  to  you  a 
statement  of  all  the  money  paid  out  by  me  for  materials  and  labor  on  the 
custom-house  furniture,  which  amounts  to  §22,14.5  IS;  part  of  this  is  bor- 
rowed, and  now  due.  I  do  hope  you  won't  let  me  sink  now,  for  what  is 
coming  to  me,  after  having  obtained  some  credit  by  the  contract.  Any 
thing  that  can  be  done,  even  at  the  greatest  sacrifice,  rather  than  have  my 
credit  injured,  I  will  submit  to. 

Respectfullv,  yours, 

ABRAHAM  STORM. 

Mr.  Edward  Curtis. 

P.  S.  The  statement  of  my  disbursements,  which  I  have  sent  you,  can 
be  sustained  by  my  bills,  my  books,  and  my  oath.  I  ought  not  to  be  ruined 
with  the  other  mechanics,  whom  D wight  is  persecuting  to  their  ruin. 


Z. 

May  12,  1842. 

Sir  :  The  copy  I  gave  of  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter  to  Walter  Bowne  Esq.,, 
was  written  here  from  memory,  as  I  had  no  copy  of  that  letter  with  me. 
My  design  was  to  imbody  Mr.  Woodbury's  intentions  fully,  as  relates  to 
the  making  of  the  fly-doors,  furniture,  &c,  as  well  as  the  arranging  these 
things,  because  I  knew  it  was  the  intention  of  Mr.  Woodbury  that  these 
things  should  be  made  or  constructed  according  to  my  designs — as  also 
the  bronzing  of  the  iron  work  ;  for  the  bronzing  was  one  of  the  items  in 
dispute,  and  I  knew  Mr.  Woodbury  agreed  with  Mr.  Hoyt  and  myself  in 
relation  to  that  thing.  Messrs.  Coe  and  Moore,  the  naval  officer  and  sur- 
veyor, had  also  reported  in  favor  of  having  the  iron  work  bronzed. 


46 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


I  beg  you  will  excuse  any  discrepancy  I  have  made  in  regard  to  the 
exact  wording  of  the  copy  I  made  entirely  from  memory  ;  and  I  sincerely 
ask  your  most  deliberate  consideration  upon  the  justice  of  our  accounts 
rendered. 

I  will,  if  necessary,  call  on  Mr.  Woodbury,  and  get  a  statement  from 
him,  as  to  what  were  his  precise  intention  and  purpose  in  the  said  letter 
to  Mr.  Bowne,  of  March  3,  1841. 

Your  very  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  FRAZEE. 

Hon.  Mr.  Fillmore. 


AA. 

New  York,  June  10,  1842. 

Sir  :  Mr.  George  Curtis,  my  brother,  has  returned  from  Washington 
this  evening,  and  stated  that  you  wished  to  hear  from  me  in  explanation 
of  a  remark  in  my  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  7th  of  April,  1841,  to  the 
effect  that  Mr.  John  F razee,  superintendent  and  architect  of  the  new  cus- 
xom-house,  had  offered  to  render  his  services,  after  the  1st  of  May,  1S41, 
without  compensation. 

Mr.  Frazee  did  make  a  communication  to  me,  that,  after  the  1st  of  May, 
1841,  he  would  serve,  gratuitously,  until  the  furnishing  and  finishing  of 
the  custom-house  was  completed.  The  communication  was  made  some 
time  in  March,  1S41,  and  at  the  same  time  Mr.  F.  stated,  in  conversation, 
that  if  paid  for  that  time  (a  few  months)  during  which  Mr.  Bowne  kept 
him  out  of  his  pay,  he  was  willing  to  serve  three  or  four  months  for 
nothing,  for  the  sake  of  having  the  furniture  conform  to  his  ideas  of  pro- 
priety, and  to  have  the  building  finished  completely  and  properly. 

It  was  then  thought  that  every  thing  could  be  made  ready  for  occupa- 
tion some  time  in  July,  1841. 

I  was  wholly  uninformed  as  to  the  length  of  time  his  services  would 
be  required,  and  I  neither  had,  nor  professed  to  have,  any  power  to  treat 
with  Mr.  Frazee  on  the  subject,  his  appointment  as  superintendent  and 
architect  being  derived  from  the  Secretary. 

Subsequently,  and  when  it  was  found  that  the  services  of  Mr.  Frazee 
were  required  for  a  much  longer  period  than  was  anticipated,  he  sometimes 
adverted  to  the  subject  in  conversation,  and  stated  that  he  had  expected 
to  lose  three  or  four  months'  time,  but  he  could  not  afford  to  lose  more 
time  ;  that  he  was  poor,  and  unable  to  work  for  nothing. 

It  is  proper  for  me  to  add,  that  I  merely  communicated  to  the  Secretary 
the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Frazee,  and  that  no  notice  was  taken  of  it  by  the 
Department,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Frazee  was  a  stranger  to  me  when  I  became  collector.  I  now  know 
him  to  be  a  poor  man,  and  utterly  destitute  of  all  property  or  means,  hav- 
ing accumulated  nothing.  He  is  an  artist  of  great  merit,  and  the  building 
erected  and  completed  under  his  superintendence  is  the  finest  structure  on 
this  continent,  and  must  endure  for  ages. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

EDWARD  CURTIS. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  Select  Committee  H.  R. 


Bep.  No.  1065. 


47 


BB. 

Articles  of  agreement  made  this  4th  day  of  January,  IS 37,  by  and  be- 
tween Walter  Bowne,  Benjamin  Ringgold,  and  Daniel  Jackson,  commis- 
sioners on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  for  the  build- 
ing of  a  custom-honse  in  the  city  of  New  York,  of  the  first  part,  and  John 
G.  Tibbetts,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  blacksmith,  of  the  second  part,  wit- 
nesseth  :  That,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  payments  hereinafter  stipu- 
lated to  be  made  to  the  party  of  the  second  part,  by  the  parties  of  the  first 
part,  commissioners,  as  aforesaid,  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  doth 
hereby  Covenant  and  agree,  to  and  with  the  said  parties  of  the  first,  and 
their  successors,  that  he  will  furnish,  make,  prepare,  and  finish,  of  wrought 
and  cast  iron,  all  the  doors,  complete,  with  hinges,  bolts,  and  locks,  (the 
locks  such  as  may  be  required,  agreeably  to  specification,)  window  frames, 
sashes  and  shutters,  railing  for  the  stairs  and  galleries,  holdfasts,  cramps 
and  chains,  grates  and  gratings,  and  all  other  iron  work  required  for  the 
building  ;  and  the  said  iron  work  is  to  be  constructed  according  to  the 
drawings,  specifications,  and  directions,  which  may  from  time  to  time  be 
given  by  the  superintendent  of  said  building  ;  and  that  all  the  iron  work 
shall  be  delivered  within  a  reasonable  stipulated  time,  given  by  the  said 
superintendent  for  preparing  the  same,  free  of  any  expense,  at  the  site  of 
the  said  custom-house,  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  inspection,  approval,  or 
rejection  of  the  said  superintendent ;  and  in  case  of  any  part  being  re- 
jected, the  same  to  be  removed,  without  delay,  from  the  site  of  the  build- 
ing, and  to  be  replaced  with  others  fully  approved  in  their  stead,  at  the 
expense  of  the  said  party  of  the  second  part ;  and  the  said  parties  of  the 
first  part,  commissioners  as  aforesaid,  do  covenant  and  agree  that  they  will 
pay  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  the  sum  of  eighteen  and  one- 
half  cents  per  pound  for  all  the  said  iron  work,  so  required  throughout, 
and  which  shall  be  weighed  at  the  building  when  delivered  and  approved. 
And  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  or  their  successors,  commissioners  as 
aforesaid,  agree  to  pay  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  when  work  to 
the  value  and  amount  of  one  thousand  dollars,  or  upwards,  is  delivered  and 
approved,  eighty  per  cent,  on  such  sums,  from  time  to  time,  until  the  whole 
work  shall  be  completed,  and  then  to  pay  the  balance  of  twenty  per  cent, 
on  the  certificate  of  the  superintendent,  that  all  the  aforesaid  work  is  fin- 
ished to  his  satisfaction.  And  it  is  further  mutually  agreed, that  in  case  of 
•failure  of  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  to  furnish  and  deliver  the  said 
iron  work,  as  hereinbefore  specified,  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for 
the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  or  their  successors,  to  declare  this  contract 
forfeited,  and  to  procure  the  said  iron  work  to  be  made  by  some  other  per- 
son or  persons,  at  the  cost  and  charges  of  the  said  parties  of  the  second 
part.   And  for  the  faithful  performance  of  all  which  agreements,  the  party 
of  the  second  part  doth  hereby  bind  himself  and  his  heirs  in  the  penal  sum 
of  two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  liquidated  damages.    In  witness 
whereof,  the  parties  hereto  have  set  their  hands  and  seals,  the  day  and  year 
first  above  written. 

JOHN  G.  TIBBETTS.  [l.  s.] 
WALTER  BOWNE.  [l. 
BENJ.  RINGGOLD,    [l.  5.] 
DANIEL  JACKSON,  [l.  s.J 

Witness:  Wm.  W.  Swan. 
A  true  copy ;  W.  S. 


48  Rep.  No.  1065. 

A  security  bond  for  five  thousand  dollars,  by  three  respectable  and  re- 
sponsible persons,  was  taken  for  the  faithful  performance  of  the  above 
contract.  W.  S. 

Comptroller's  Office,  April  16,  1842. 

A  true  copy,  from  the  one  on  file  in  this  office. 

J.  BARTRAM  NORTH,  Clerk. 


CC. 

New  York,  April  13,  1842. 
Dear  Sir  :  At  the  request  of  Mr.  Tibbetts,  1  have  examined  the  minutes 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  former  commissioners  of  the  custom-house,  and 
find  it  there  entered,  that  several  proposals  had  been  received  for  doing 
the  iron  work  of  the  new  custom-house;  that  the  proposal  of  John  G. 
Tibbetts,  at  \S\  cents  per  pound,  was  the  most  favorable,  and  a  resolution 
to  contract  with  him,  &c.  The  contract  was  executed,  and  bonds  for  se- 
curity given  by  him,  &c.  I  cannot  find  the proposals  of  other  applicants; 
they  do  not  appear  to  have  been  preserved. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

GEO.  F.  TALMAN, 
Commissioner  New  Custom-House,  N.  Y. 

J.  Frazee,  Esq., 

Washington  City. 


Treasury  Department,  March  26,  1842. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  note  of  to-day,  I  have  to  state  that,  on  the  6th 
April,  1841,  G.  F.  Talman  was  appointed  commissioner  and  disbursing 
agent  to  pay  off  the  balance  of  claims  due  for  materials  and  work  done  on  the 
the  new  custom-house  building  in  New  York,  and  he  was  allowed  a  com- 
mission of  one  per  cent  on  the  money  appropriated  by  Congress.  These  dis- 
bursements have  been  made,  and  his  accounts  have  been  rendered  and  ad- 
justed at  the  Treasury,  on  the  30th  April  last.  There  is  no  person  now 
acting  as  commissioner  on  the  building  of  the  custom-house  at  New  York. 
With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD. 

Hon.  George  Poindexter,  Washington. 


DD. 

New  York,  April  10,  1841. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  submit  an  estimate  for  painting 
and  bronzing  the  iron  work  of  the  New  York  custom-house. 

For  the  sum  of  four  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  I  will  fur- 
nish the  materials  and  execute  the  painting  and  bronzing  of  said  iron  workj 
in  manner  as  follows : 


Rep.  TSTo.  1065. 


49 


The  iron  work  of  the  first  and  second  stories  to  be  finished  with  gold 
bronze.  The  sashes  and  shutters  to  be  well  painted  with  four  coatings,  fin- 
ished to  a  fair  surface,  and  to  have  two  coats  of  varnish  after  the  gold  is 
put  on.  The  gallery  and  stair  railings  to  be  finished  in  the  same  style. 
The  doors  to  have  eight  coatings,  and  each  coat  rubbed  down  to  a  smooth, 
surface  ;  then  bronzed,  and  finished  with  two  coats  of  best  copal  varnish, 
well  rubbed  down.  The  iron  work  of  the  basement  and  attic  stories  to  be 
.painted  only,  in  imitation  of  light  bronze.  The  railings  of  the  porticoes  and 
areas  to  be  well  painted,  and  finished  with  copper  bronze.  The  whole 
work  shall  be  done  in  the  best  possible  manner,  and  to  your  entire  satis- 
faction. 

Trulv,  yours, 

JOHN  HODGKIN, 
rainier,  378  Broome  street. 

Mr.  John  Frazee. 

Accepted  the  above  proposal  of  Mr.  Hodgkin,  and  have  agreed  with  him 
that  he  shall  supply  the  materials  and  do  the  above-mentioned  work  upon 
the  new  custom-house,  in  the  manner  and  upon  the  terms  of  price  stated  in 
his  proposal. 

JOHN  FRAZEE, 
Superintendent  and  •Architect. 


EE. 

New  Custom-House,  New  York,  January  25,  1842. 

Sir  :  1  have  received  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  with  a  copy  of  one 
from  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  difference  in  amount  between  my  estimate  of  June  last  and  the 
one  submitted  in  December,  for  completing  this  building. 

With  my  estimate,  made  December  3,  I  handed  our  commissioner  a 
written  statement,  explaining  the  causes  for  the  large  additions  in  this  esti- 
mate, and  desired  that  the  explanation  and  estimate  might  be  forwarded 
together  to  the  Treasury  Department.  But  Mr.  Talman  seemed  to  think, 
the  explanation  unnecessary,  observing  that  if  any  explanation  should  be 
required,  it  could  easily  be  furnished  at  any  time  when  called  for.* 

What  additions  entire,  and  on  what  items  of  work  have  additional  ex- 
penses been  made  upon  the  estimate  of  December,  may  easily  be  seen  by 
comparing  the  two  estimates  together.  Why  these  additions  were  made,  I 
will  now  proceed  to  show.  Annexed  is  a  list  of  the  principal  additions, 
and  I  will  explain,  with  reference  to  each  number,  beginning  with  No.  1. 
Here  is  an  addition  of  $1,S32  40  upon  this  item,  and  which  consists  chiefly 
in  carpenters'  work,  in  making  pine  cases,  shelvings,  and  drawers  for  the 
basement  offices  and  rooms  of  the  attic  and  upper  lofts.  Nothing  of  this 
was  contemplated  by  me  when  making  the  estimate  in  June.  I  had  sup- 
posed that  all  the  cases,  &c,  whether  made  of  mahogany  or  pine,  would 
be  furnished  by  the  cabinet  maker.    Subsequently,  however,  it  was  thought 


•  Mr.  Talman  is  now  absent  from  this  city. 

4 


50 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


best,  both  upon  the  ground  of  economy  and  expediency,  by  the  collector 
and  myself,  to  let  our  carpenters  make  all  the  pine  cases,  drawers,  &c.,. 
above  mentioned. 

No.  2.  Here  the  sum  of  #6,650  above  the  former  estimate,  arises  from 
having  the  stands  which  support  the  desks,  tables,  and  side  cases,  through- 
out the  first  and  second  stories,  made  of  iron,  and  taken  into  the  estimate 
for  the  building,  instead  of  being  put  in  the  furniture  account.  It  was  a 
suggestion  of  mine,  since  the  June  estimate  was  made,  to  have  all  these 
stands  and  supports  made  of  cast  iron.  It  met  with  the  approval  of  the 
collector  and  other  officers  of  the  customs,  and  now,  since  the  work  is 
done,  it  is  highly  approved  and  admired  by  every  one. 

No.  3.  The  sum  of  S70S  for  patent  springs  on  which  to  revolve  the  fly- 
doors,  including  the  handles.  Upon  trial,  we  found  that,  in  hanging  the  fly- 
doors  to  shut  upon  a  rabbit,  the  report  was  so  loud  as  would  be  extremely 
annoying  in  the  transacting  of  business.  For  this  evil  I  knew  of  no  remedy 
but  the  revolving  spring,  in  the  use  of  which  no  rabbit  is  required  to  stop 
the  door ;  consequently,  it  makes  no  noise  or  report  whatever. 

No.  4.  Here  is  an  addition  of  Si, 550  14  above  the  former  estimate,  on 
the  article  of  lumber.  This  sum  embraces  all  the  lumber  that  has  been 
and  is  yet  expected  to  be  used  in  the  pine  cases,  drawers,  fcc.,  above  stated,, 
and  was  not  considered  in  the  former  estimate. 

No.  5.  Here  is  $  1,300  for  carpenters'  work  yet  required  in  the  making  and 
completing  the  number  of  pine  cases,  Stc,  that  are  wanted. 

No.  C.  $3,500,  the  amount  of  bills  chiefly  due  for  painting  and  bronzing 
the  fly-doors,  iron  desk  stands,  table  supports,  &c,  and  the  railings  in  the 
different  offices.  This  amount  also  covers  a  great  number  of  miscellaneous 
items  not  before  mentioned,  among  which  are  the  painting  of  the  pine  cases, 
&c.,  the  lettering  the  directory  signs,  the  labelling  over  the  doors  of  the 
different  offices,  and  upon  the  principal  desks  in  each  oflice,  all  which  were 
not  embraced  in  the  former  estimate. 

No.  7.  #1,647  due  the  architect,  in  addition  to  the  sum  put  down  in  the 
former  estimate,  that  estimate  not  embracing  any  prospective  pay  to  the 
architect. 

No.  8.  $254  28  for  carvings  which  I  deemed  necessary  upon  the  encase- 
ments to  the  fly-doors  at  the  principal  entrances  to  the  building;  and  No.  9 
is  $90  16  for  large  glass  lights  over  these  and  the  large  middle  fly-doors.. 
These  items  should  have  been  in  the  former  estimate,  but  somehow  they 
were  entirely  overlooked. 

No.  10.  #500  added  upon  the  item  of  contingent  expenses. 

The  foregoing  sums  amount  in  all  to  Si 8,031  9S.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  two  estimates  is  S18,155  15.  There  are  additions  upon  several 
items  of  work  which  I  have  thought  it  unnecessary  to  extract  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  making  the  two  amounts  square  precisely.  Trusting  the  above 
explanation  will  be  deemed  sufficiently  full  and  satisfactory,  both  to  your- 
self and  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  I  submit  the  same  for  your 
consideration  and  approval. 

I  am,  with  due  respect,  your  very  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  FRAZEE, 
Architect  and  Superintendent. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Bep.  Ho.  1065.  51 

List  of  items  copied  from  the  estimate  of  expenses  for  finishing  the  new 
custom-house,  New  York,  made  December  3,  1S41,  by  the  architect. 

No.  1.  Amount  due  to  carpenters,  stonecutters,  masons,  and 

laborers,  as  per  labor  pay  list                    -  §3,070  40 

Remarks.  In  the  estimate  of  June,  1641,  the  amount  for  car- 
pentry and  other  work  is  #838;  lumber,  $400         -          -  1,23S  00 


Sum  additional  -  1,S32  40 


No.  2.  John  G.  Tibbetts's  bill  for  iron  work  #s,500  00 

Rem.  For  iron  work  in  the  June  estimate       ...    1,850  00 


Sum  additional          -  6,650  00 

No.  3.  J.  Stone's  bill,  for  door-springs  and  handles     -          -  $70S  00 

Rem.  Not  in  the  estimate  of  June.  — — : 

No.  4.  Amount  of  bills  for  lumber  #1,350  14;  for  lumber  yet 

wanted,  #600          -          -          -          -                     -  Si, 950  14 

Rem.  For  lumber  in  the  estimate  of  June       ...  400  00 


Sum  additional  ....     1,550  14 


No.  5.  For  carpentry  work  yet  required  in  making  pine  cases, 

&c.    -          -          -          -          -          -          -          -  Si, 300  00 

Rem,  Not  in  the  June  estimate.  ~  

No.  6.  Amount  of  bills  for  painting  and  bronzing  fly-doors, 

desk  stands,  railings,  and  a  variety  of  other  items  -  -  #3,500  00 
Rem.  Not  in  the  June  estimate.  ==== 

No.  7.  One  year's  pay  due  the  architect         -          -          -  #2,817  00 

Rem.  In  the  estimate  of  June  is         -  1,170  00 


Sum  additional  -  -  -  i,647  00 


Nos.  S  and  9.  Carving  for  the  encasements  to  fly-doors,  #254  2S; 

and  glass  lights  for  said  doors,  #90  16  -  -  -  #344  44 
Rem.  Not  in  the  June  estimate.   

No.  10.  Contingent  expenses,  #1,000.    Rem.  In  June  estimate 

is  #500        -  #500  00 


Making  the  total  amount  of  all  the  additions,  together     -  18.QS1  9S 

J.  FRAZEE, 

Architect  and  Superintendent. 


52 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


FF. 

New  York,  June  4,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose,  herewith,  a  statement  and  estimate  of 
the  work  and  expenses  necessary  for  the  completion  of  the  new  custom- 
house in  this  city,  made  by  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect  and  superintendent. 

The  appropriation  made  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  has  been  ex- 
pended, as  will  appear  by  my  vouchers  and  accounts,  forwarded  to  the 
First  Auditor  of  the  Treasury.  It  may  be  proper  to  remark  that  the  last 
appropriation  did  not  provide  for  any  of  the  items  of  the  present  estimate, 
being  founded  on  expenditures  that  had  been  made  at  the  time  of  the  esti- 
mate, without  any  reference  to  painting  and  bronzing  the  iron  work.  The 
fly-doors  are  rendered  necessary  by  the  weight  of  the  iron  doors,  making 
them  unfit  for  constant  use.  I  have  not  deemed  myself  authorized,  as  com- 
missioner, to  make  contracts  for  the  performance  of  any  of  the  work  men- 
tioned in  said  statement;  but  a  part  of  it  has  already  been  done,  and  the  re- 
mainder commenced,  and  now  in  progress,  under  the  order  and  direction  of 
Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect  and  superintendent,  who  was  authorized  so  to  do 
by  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  upon  condition  that  the  payments 
should  be  made  after  an  appropriation  by  Congress.  I  shall  be  pleased  to 
give  any  further  particulars  or  explanations  that  the  Department  may  re- 
quire. 

I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  obtain  definitive  propositions  from  the  owners 
of  the  land  adjoining  the  new  custom-house,  on  the  eastern  side,  but  expect 
to  be  able  to  obtain  them  within  a  few  days. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  most  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  F.  TALMA  N. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Estimated  expenses  for  completing  the  new  custom-house*  New  York. 

For  carpentry  and  other  work  in  constructing  the  casements 
and  fly-doors  at  the  principal  entrances,  and  also  the  fly- 
doors  for  the  entrances  to  all  the  public  offices  of  the 
building    .......      $1,238  25 

Plumbers'  bill  rendered,  $104  32:  plumbers'  work  to  do. 

$50  -  -  -  154  32 

Five  months'  pay  due  the  architect  and  superintendent      -        1,170  00 

Contract  with  John  Kodgkin,  for  furnishing  the  materials  and 
painting  the  iron  work  throughout  the  interior  and  exterior 
of  the  building,  and  bronzing  the  iron  doors,  corridors,  rail- 
ings, sashes,  and  shutters  of  the  first  and  second  stories    -        4,350  00 

For  covering  with  a  solution  of  zinc  the  iron  trellis  work 
over  the  hot  water  pipes,  to  prevent  corrosion — 4,320  lbs. 
at  6  cents  per  pound        -  •  259  20 

Orlando  Grav's  bill  rendered,  for  painting  and  painting  ma- 
terials     -  76  35 

Bills  rendered  for  stonecutting  ,  -  -  -  244  00 

For  stonecutting  yet  to  be  done,  in  preparing  the  large  tab- 
let on  the  Pine  street  front,  and  cutting  letters  thereon, 
trimming  out  the  jambs  of  the  attic  windows,  and  form- 
ing a  drip  on  each  sili,  and  other  small  jobs        -         -         175  00 


Hep.  No.  1065. 


53 


For  the  iron  railings  required  in  the  principal  offices,  (in  the 
place  of  counters,)  to  separate  the  public  from  the  clerks' 
line  of  desks        .  .  -  #1,850  00 

Contingent  expenses,  say     -----  500  00 


$10,017  12 

June  1,  1841.   ~ 


Estimated  expenses  for  finishing  the  new  custom-house,  New  York. 

Amount  due  to  carpenters,  stonecutters,  masons,  and  labor- 
ers, as  per  labor  pay  list  -----  $3,070  40 

To  pay  contract  with  John  Hodgkin,  for  painting  and  bronz- 
ing the  iron  work  of  the  building  -          -          -          -  4,350  00 

To  pay  bills  for  painting  and  bronzing  the  fly-doors,  iron  desk 
stands,  table  stands,  case  stands,  and  iron  railings  in  the 
various  offices,  (not  under  contract)         -                    -  3,500  00 
To  pay  bill  for  coating  with  a  solution  of  zinc  the  iron  trel- 
lis work  over  the  hot  water  pipes            -  288  00 
To  pay  bill  for  patent  springs  and  handles  for  the  fly-doors  -  708  00 
To  pay  bill  for  plumbing     -                                         -  104  32 
To  pay  bills  for  lumber       -----  1,350  14 

For  lumber  yet  wanted       -          -          ...          -  600  00 

To  pay  bill  for  hardware     -          -          -          -          -  182  7S 

For  carpenters'  work  yet  wanted,  in  making  pine  -cases  (for 

papers)  in  the  upper  stories,  and  other  fixtures     -          -  1,300  00 

To  pay  bill  for  iron  work     -----  8,500  00 

One  year's  pay  due  the  architect     -  2,817  00 

Gallier  &  Murphy's  bill  for  carving  -          -          -          -  254  28 

Bill  for  glass  lights  -          -          -          -          -          -  90  16 

Bill  for  stationery    -          -          -          -          -          -  22  19 

Bill  of  sundries — pails,  brooms,  brushes,  soap,  oil,  &c,  for 

the  building                 '  -          -          -          -          -  35  00 

Contingencies         -  .1,000  00 

$28,172  27 


GG. 

Collector's  Office, 
New  York,  November  9,  1841. 

Gentlemen:  I  have  received  a  copy  .of  your  order  of  the  8th  instant, 
requesting  me  £i  to  furnish  copies  of  the  contracts  for  the  furniture,  and  also 
for  the  railings  and  other  iron  work  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  togeth- 
er with  a  statement  of  what  amounts  have  been  paid  for  the  same,  and  out 
of  what  fund  the  same  has  been  drawn." 

I  have  the  honor  to  state,  in  reply,  that  no  contract  has  been  made  or  en- 
tered into  by  me  for  "  railings  or  other  iron  work  of  the  New  York  custom- 
house," and  no  account  has  been  paid  by  me  for  any  such  work  or  mate- 
rials, out  of  any  fund. 


54 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


I  transmit,  herewith,  a  copy  of  a  contract  for  furnishing  the  new  custom- 
house, dated  the  24th  day  of  April,  1841.  This  contract  was  entered  into 
in  pursuance  of  instructions  from  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,  and  the 
sum  of  $7,000  lias  been  paid  on  account,  and  charged  as  expenses  inciden- 
tal to  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  to  the  fund  derived  from  the  fees  and 
emoluments  of  the  collector,  &c. 

The  subject  of  furnishing  the  New  York  custom-house  was,  by  a  former 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  committed  to  the  charge  of  John  Frazee,  archi- 
tect of  the  custom-house,  whose  plans,  drawings,  and  descriptions  of  the 
furniture,  were  submitted  to  and  adopted  by  the  Department. 

Mr.  Frazee's  schedule  and  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  furniture  were 
transmitted  to  me  by  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  are  the  same 
which  form  the  schedule  annexed  to  the  contract  now  transmitted  to  you, 
with  this  difference  only — that  the  contract  prices  are  a  few  hundred  dollars 
less,  in  the  aggregate.  By  virtue  of  the  right  reserved  to  the  collector  and 
John  Frazee,  the  architect,  to  reject  and  vary  the  schedule,  the  architect  has 
made  variations  to  a  considerable  extent, as  I  am  informed;  and  I  directed, 
immediately  after  the  making  of  the  contract,  that  the  furnishing  of  the 
basement  room  should  be  dispensed  with  altogether,  and  the  room  origin- 
ally designed  for  the  use  of  the  receiver  general  has  been  fitted  up  for  the 
surveyor,  instead  of  the  basement  rotundo. 

The  rooms  in  the  third  story  will  be  furnished  with  such  of  the  old  fur- 
niture as  will  bear  moving. 

I  have  no  means  at  present  of  determining  to  what  extent  the  variations 
from  the  schedule,  and  the  omission  to  furnish  the  basement  rotundo,  will 
reduce  the  total  cost  of  the  furniture ;  but  the  powers  of  the  collector  and 
of  the  architect,  under  the  contract,  will  secure  the  Government  against  the 
payment  of  higher  prices  than  shall  be  deemed  reasonable  by  competent 
mechanics,  whose  advice  will  be  sought. 

I  am,  sir,  verv  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Messrs.  Poindexter,  ^ 

Steuart.  and  ^  Commissioners. 
Bradley.  S 


HH. 

Treasury  Department,  June  6,  1842. 
Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  I  have  to  say  that  I  was 
lately  at  New  York,"  and  visited  the  custom-house.  In  passing  through  the 
building,  my  attention  was  called  to  the  furniture,  including  desks,  &c.  The 
work  appeared  to  me  to  be  very  substantial,  and  tastefully  executed. 

In  these  matters,  however,  I  do  not  pretend  to  any  skill,  and  my  obser- 
vations at  the  time  were  so  cursory  that  I  can  do  nothing  more  than  indicate 
the  general  impression  made  upon  my  mind. 
I  am,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  Select  Committee. 

The  collector  at  New  York  has  been  instructed  as  requested  by  the  com- 
mittee. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


55 


II. 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  the  city  of  New  York,  having  been  request- 
ed by  the  principal  officers  of  the  customs  at  this  port,  do  certify  our  opin- 
ion, to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  the  furniture  provided  for,  and  now 
placed  in  the  several  apartments  of  the  custom-house,  is  fit  and  appropri- 
ate ;  that  it  is  of  the  most  substantial  and  perfect  workmanship,  and  not 
more  expensive  in  its  character  than  the  fine  building  in  which  it  is  placed, 
and  the  accommodation  of  business,  require. 

SPOFFORD,  TILESTON,  &  CO. 

E.  RIGGS. 

DAVIS,  BROOKS,  &  CO. 

GOODHUE  &  CO. 

BROWN  &  BROTHERS. 

C.  BOLTON,  FOX,  &  LIVINGSTON. 

JOHN  GRISWOLD. 

BOORMAN,  JOHNSTON,  &  CO. 

JAMES  McCALL  &  CO. 

HOWL  AND  &  ASPINWALL. 

BARCLAY  &  LIVINGSTON. 

ANDREW  FOSTER  &  SONS. 

EBENEZER  STEVENS  &  SONS. 

F.  SHELDON  &  CO. 
DANIEL  STANTON. 

May  30,  1S42. 


JJ. 

Treasury  Department,  June  16,  1S42. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
14th  instant,  requesting  information  relative  to  furnishing  the  New  York 
custom-house,  and,  in  reply,  would  state  Mr.  Curtis  took  charge  of  the 
-custom-house  on  the  23d  March,  1841.  The  furniture  of  the  custom-house 
has  heretofore  been  paid  for  out  of  the  "  fees  and  emoluments  of  the  office." 

I  have  this  day  requested  Mr.  Curtis  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy  of  Mr. 
A.  Storm's  account  for  furniture,  which  shall  be  transmitted  to  you  so  soon 
as  received. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  Committee  N.  Y.  Custom-House,  Ho.  of  Reps. 


KK. 

Collector's  Office,  New  York, 

December  3,  1841,  A\  P.  M. 
Gentlemen  :  I  send,  enclosed,  my  answers  to  the  3d  and  4th  questions, 
fpart  of  a  series  of  nine  questions  submitted  to  me  on  the  26th  ultimo. 


56 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


This  evening  I  will  draw  my  replies  to  the  residue  of  the  questions,  and 
.send  them  to  you  to-morrow,  as  soon  as  they  can  be  copied. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Messrs.  Poindexter,  ~) 

Steuart,  and  >  Commissioners,  fyc. 
Bradley,  ) 

3.  Question.  Please  state  what  amount  has  been  paid  by  you  for  iron 
railing,  referred  to  in  your  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the 
7th  April  last;  also,  what  amount  has  been  paid  for  iron  desk  stands  or 
other  iron  furniture  for  the  new  custom-house,  and  how  much  per  pound 
has  been  paid. 

Answer.  Nothing  has  been  paid  by  me  for  iron  railing  of  any  descrip- 
tion for  the  new  custom-house,  nor  for  iron  desk  stands  or  other  iron  fur- 
niture. 

4.  Question.  You  were  authorized  by  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, in  his  letter  of  the  5th  April  last,  to  furnish  the  new  custom-house 
u  plainly  and  substantially,  using  so  much  of  the  old  furniture  as  may  be 
convenient,  and  taking  care  to  exercise  proper  economy  in  the  matter  ;" 
is  it  by  this  authority  you  have  procured  the  new  furniture  recently  placed 
in  the  new  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  By  the  authority  of  the  late  Secretary,  of  the  2d  and  5th  April, 
taken  in  connexion  with  my  letters  to  him  of  the  25th  March  and  of  the 
1st  and  7th  of  April,  the  contract  for  the  furniture  was  made  with  Mr. 
Storm,  (a  copy  of  which  you  have  in  your  possession,)  founded  upon  a 
schedule  and  estimate  transmitted  to  me  by  the  Secretary,  with  his  letter 
of  the  2d  April.  I  was  directed  to  inquire  whether  all  the  articles  of  furni- 
ture in  that  schedule  and  estimate  were  required,  whether  the  prices  were 
reasonable,  and  whether  some  of  the  old  furniture  could  not  be  used  in  the 
new  house.  All  these  inquiries  were  responded  to  by  me,  and  the  Secre- 
tary advised  that  all  the  articles  described  in  that  schedule  would  be  want- 
ed, that  the  old  furniture  would  answer  for  the  third  story  rooms,  that  the 
contract  would  be  made  (as  it  was  made)  at  lower  prices  than  those  stated 
in  the  schedule  sent  to  me,  and  that,  under  his  letter  of  the  5th  April,  the 
new  custom-house  would  be  furnished  with  all  the  economy  consistent 
with  the  plans  of  the  architect,  which  plans  had  been  approved  by  the 
former  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who,  by  his  letter  of  the  3d  of  March, 
1841,  to  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  had  directed  Mr.  Frazee,  the  superintendent 
and  architect,  to  be  continued  until  the  building  was  finished  and  furnish- 
ed, and  that  his  plan  of  finishing  and  furnishing  the  building  was  to  be 
adopted.  The  articles  contracted  for  are  the  same  contained  in  the  sched- 
ule and  estimates  sent  to  me  by  the  Department,  except  I  have  dispensed 
with  the  furniture  designed  for  the  large  room  in  the  basement  story. 
Nobody  will  contend  that  the  old  furniture  could  have  been  with  any  pro- 
priety used  in  the  new  building,  except  as  I  propose  to  use  it,  in  the  3d 
story.  The  plan  of  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  has  been  followed,  so  far  as 
I  have  had  any  connexion  in  the  matter,  and  the  furniture  provided  under 
the  contract  I  entered  into,  some  of  which  is  now  in  the  custom-house,  is 
plain  and  substantial,  in  reference  to  the  building  in  which  it  is  placed  ; 
and  proper  economy  has  been  exercised  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  I  had  any 
control.    The  style  of  the  furniture  is  more  plain,  more  substantial,  and 


Eep.  No.  1065. 


57 


jess  expensive,  than  that  found  in  many  of  the  public  offices  at  Washing- 
ton. "  Plainly  and  substantially"  are  relative  terms,  as  applied  to  the  fur- 
niture of  a  building,  and  they  were  used  by  the  Secretary,  in  his  letter  of 
the  5th  April  last,  in  relation  to  the  furniture  of  a  building  erected  at  the 
expense  of  $  1,000,000,  and  to  stand  for  ages  the  house  of  the  customs  at 
ihe  principal  port  of  the  Union. 

EDWARD  CURTIS. 


LL. 

Collector's  Office,  New  York, 

Saturday,  November  20,  1841. 

Gentlemen  :  I  have  received  a  copy  of  your  order  of  the  18th  instant.,, 
by  which  the  collector  is  requested  to  furnish  the  commissioners  with  the 
authority  from  the  Treasury  Department  by  which  he  was  authorized  to 
pay  the  sum  of  $7,000,  paid  on  account,  and  charged  as  expenses  inci- 
dental to  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  out  of  the  fund  derived  from  fees 
and  emoluments  of  the  collector,  &c,  for  and  on  account  of  furniture  for 
the  new  custom-house,  and  whether  the  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  §7,000 
has  or  has  not  created  to  that  extent  a  deficiency  in  the  payment  of  the 
charges  by  law  to  be  made  on  that  fund. 

I  have  the  honor  to  refer  the  commissioners,  in  reply  to  the  inquiry  con- 
cerning the  authority  to  pay  the  said  sum  of  $7,000,  to  the  correspondence 
between  this  office  and  the  Treasury  Department,  copies  of  which  are 
herewith  transmitted,  consisting  of  the  collector's  letter  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  of  the  25th  March,  1841,  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  to  the 
collector  of  the  2d  April,  1S41,  collector's  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  1st 
April,  1S41,  the  collector's  letter  of  the  7th  April  1S41,  the  Secretary's  let- 
ter of  the  5th  April,  1841,  and  the  collector's  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
23d  April,  1841. 

I  believe  that  the  subject  of  the  furniture  is  mentioned  incidentally  in 
other  letters  between  the  collector  and  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
but  I  have  not  had  time  to  look  further  into  the  correspondence,  and  have 
nothing  to  add,  except  that,  in  reply  to  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  9th  of  September  last,  the  fact  of  the  payment  of  the  said 
sum  of  $7,000  was  stated,  and  also  that  it  had  been  charged  to  the  fund 
derived  from  the  fees  and  emoluments  of  the  collector,  &c,  as  an  expense 
incidental  to  the  collection  of  the  revenue. 

In  regard  to  the  inquiry  of  the  commissioners,  "  whether  the  payment  of 
the  said  sum  of  $7,000  has  or  has  not  to  that  extent  created  a  deficiency 
in  the  payment  of  the  charges  by  law  to  be  made  on  that  fund,"  I  have 
the  honor  to  state  that,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  the  said  payment  has  not  cre- 
ated a  deficiency,  and  that  no  deficiency  exists. 

The  collector  is  entitled  by  law  to  all  the  fees  and  commissions,  arising 
from  the  importations  of  the  year,  that  would  have  accrued  to  him  if  the 
act  of  the  14th  July,  1832,  had  not  gone  into  effect.  In  that  case  he  would 
have  received  commissions  on  all  merchandise  now  free,  or  which,  at  any 
time  during  this  year,  have  been  free,  that  were  dutiable  prior  to  the  act 
of  the  14th  July,  1832.    He  would  also  have  received  fees  on  all  sums 


58 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


over  S50  and  under  $200  that  were  then  bondable.  When  the  act  of  the 
14th  July,  1S32,  went  into  operation,  these  bonds  were  allowed  on  each 
entry  over  $50,  whereas  now  there  are  bnt  two  bonds  on  all  entries  over 
$200.  Then  woollen  goods  were  entitled  to  bond  ;  now  the  duties  must 
be  paid  in  cash,  no  matter  what  the  amount  of  the  particular  importation. 

We  do  not,  therefore,  speak  of  deficiency  from  fees  and  emoluments,  as 
at  the  close  of  the  year  the  whole  amount  is  derived  from  the  importations 
of  that  year ;  and,  in  the  case  of  the  £57,000,  it  is  not  supposed  that  it  will 
exceed  the  aggregate  arising  therefrom.  It  is,  perhaps,  proper  to  add 
that  the  5th  section  of  the  act  of  the  3d  March,  1841,  with  its  proviso,  is 
regarded  as  appropriating  to  the  fund  above  referred  to  for  incidental  ex- 
penses a  new  income ;  therefore,  the  private  emolument  of  the  collector 
derived  from  the  profits  on  the  storage  of  merchandise  in  the  public  stores, 
[is]  an  income  quite  sufficient  of  itself,  in  a  prosperous  time  of  commerce,  to 
pay  the  whole  expense  of  furnishing  the  new  custom-house  in  a  short 
period.  So  that  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  actual  revenue  derived  from 
duties  will  not  be  diminished  by  the  outlay  for  furnishing  the  new  custom- 
house. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Messrs.  Poindexter,  ~) 

;tkuart,  and  >  Commissioners. 
Bradley,  J 


Test  imony  of  Joseph  Hough. 
Being  sworn,  deposed : 

1.  Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 
Answer.  A  broker. 

2.  Question  by  committee.  Were  you  employed,  in  April,  1S41,  to  make 
contracts  for  furniture  for  the  New  York  custom-house;  and  if  so,  by  whom 
were  you  employed  ? 

Answer.  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Curtis  on  the  10th  of  April,  of 
which  the  following  is  a  copy,  (marked  R.)  Annexed  to  the  same  is  my 
reply  to  Mr.  Curtis. 

3.  Question  by  committee.  In  what  manner  did  you  notify  the  cabinet 
makers  that  these  contracts  would  be  made  ? 

Answer.  I  gave  no  notice  whatever.  Yet  I  made  such  inquiry,  in  rela- 
tion to  different  cabinet  makers,  to  make  such  a  selection  as  the  nature  of  the 
work  would  require,  and  deeming  it  better  that  the  person  selected  should 
be  able  to  devote  his  entire  time  to  it,  throwing  aside  his  ordinary  business; 
that,  after  having  satisfied  myself,  I  applied  to  Mr.  Abraham  Storm,  who 
is  considered  among  the  first  class  of  workmen,  and,  after  several  conver- 
sations were  introduced,  I  submitted  a  list  of  the  furniture  required  to 
make  an  estimate,  and,  finding  that  the  estimate  came  within  the  estimate 
that  had  already  been  made  by  Mr.  John  Horspool,  and  approved  by  the 
former  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  which  I  was  particularly  referred 
to  in  my  instructins,  submitted  the  same,  with  my  recommendation,  to 
J\Ir.  Curtis. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


59 


4.  Question  by  committee.  How  many  cabinet  makers  did  you  consult  be- 
sides Mr.  Storm  ? 

Answer.  I  consulted  no  cabinet  makers.  I  informed  myself  from  other 
sources, 

5.  Question  by  committee.  Have  you  been  accustomed  to  making  large 
contracts  for  furniture  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  particularly  acquainted  with  the  article  of  furniture. 
I  have  been  intimately  acquainted  with  Mr.  Curtis  for  some  twenty-five 
years.  I  have  been  extensively  engaged  in  business,  mercantile  and  manu- 
facturing, and  have  been  extensively  engaged  in  building  machinery,  and 
claim  to  have  a  general  business  knowledge.  I  have  transacted  a  great 
deal  of  business  with  Mr.  Curtis,  and  have  been  employed  by  him  in  ex- 
Tensive  transactions,  and  I  believe  that  he  has  the  utmost  confidence  in  me  in 
all  business  matters. 

6.  Question  by  committee.  Was  there  any  understanding  between  you 
and  Mr.  Curtis,  other  than  is  contained  in  his  letter  of  April  10, 1841,  and 
your  reply  of  the  20th,  as  to  the  motive  he  had  in  selecting  you  to  make 
xhese  contracts,  instead  of  pursuing  the  ordinary  mode  of  letting  them  to 
the  lowest  bidder  ? 

Answer.  There  never  was  any  understanding  between  myself  and  Mr. 
Curtis,  other  than  what  is  contained  in  his  letter  and  my  reply  above  refer- 
red to.  The  course  which  was  pursued  was  in  accordance  with  my  judg- 
ment, as  to  what  was  best  to  be  done  ;  that  I  did  not  consider  the  contract 
as  one  of  such  a  nature  as  would  be  suitable  to  advertise  for  proposals, 
knowing  that  it  must  eventually  undergo  many  alterations  as  to  the  par- 
ticular articles,  the  quantity,  and  particularly  the  style  of  finish  ;  that  the 
head  of  each  bureau  might  wish  some  alteration  made,  to  suit  his  con- 
venience. 

7.  Question  by  committee.  Was  the  estimate  of  furniture  alluded  to  in 
Mr.  Curtis's  letter  ever,  at  any  time,  within  your  knowledge,  submitted  to 
any  other  cabinet  makers  than  Mr.  Horspool  and  Mr.  Storm? 

Answer.  They  were  not,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

8.  Question  by  committee.  Did  you  compare  the  prices  embraced  in  the 
proposals  of  Mr.  Storm  with  the  prices  of  similar  work  in  New  York  ;  and 
if  so,  were  the  same  higher  or  lower  than  the  customary  prices  ? 

Answer.  I  was  satisfied  that  the  prices  were  not  higher  than  was  cus- 
tomary for  the  same  style  of  work  in  New  York. 

9.  Question  by  committee.  How  long  did  your  agency  continue  ? 
Answer.  My  agency  consisted  entirely  in  this — that  the  work  should  not 

be  delayed,  but  that  the  furniture  should  be  ready  as  required ;  which 
agency  expired  when  the  work  was  completed,  about  two  months  since. 

10.  Question  by  committee.  What  compensation  were  you  paid  for  these 
services,  and  by  whom  were  you  paid  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  has  ever  been  said  by  Mr.  Curtis  on  the  subject,  except 
what  is  contained  in  his  letter  of  instructions,  but  I  made  up  my  own  mind 
that  I  ought  to  be  paid  a  commission  of  one  per  cent,  upon  the  amount  dis- 
bursed, which  is  $25,000  or  $26,000.  I  have  not  received  one  cent  com- 
pensation. 

Ill  Question  by  committee.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Storm  has  been 
paid ;  and  if  so,  out  of  what  fund  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Storm  has  been  paid  the  amount  of  the  original  contract, 
which  was  some  $18,500;  and,  as  I  understand,  under  an  order  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


60 


Rep.  No.  10G5. 


12.  Question  by  committee.  Did  Mr.  Storm  receive  no  payments  by  the 
^eek  or  month,  during  the  prosecution  of  the  work  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Storm  received  payments  from  time  to  time,  but  never  in 
advance  of  his  work. 


June  6,  1842. 

Testimony  of  Mr.  Joseph  Hough,  in  continuation. 

13.  Question.  Had  you  anything  to  do  with  making  ihe  contract  for 
furniture  with  Mr.  Storm? 

Answer.  Nothing  more  than  is  contained  in  my  letter  of  instructions  to 
select  such  person  as  I  thought  would  be  suitable,  and  to  refer  him  to  Mr. 
Curtis. 

14.  Question.  Did  you  ascertain  from  Mr.  Storm  the  prices  at  which  he 
would  do  the  work,  before  you  referred  him  to  Mr.  Curtis? 

Answer.  I  did,  as  I  have  before  fully  stated. 

15.  Question.  Did  you  exhibit  to  him  the  estimate  which  was  furnished 
you  by  Mr.  Curtis,  accompanying  his  letter  of  April  10  ;  and  if  so,  were 
the  prices  at  which  he  agreed  to  do  the  work  higher  or  lower  than  that 
estimate  ? 

Answer.  I  showed  Mr.  Storm  simply  the  list  of  articles  to  be  furnished. 
The  prices  or  estimate  at  which  he  proposed  to  furnish  the  articles  were 
less  by  some  few  hundred  dollars  than  the  estimate  of  Mr.  Horspool.  My 
impression  is  that  it  was  some  five  hundred  to  a  thousand  dollars  under. 

16.  Question.  Did  you  and  Mr.  Storm  talk  over  and  agree  upon  the 
prices  of  the  work,  before  he  went  to  Mr.  Curtis  to  execute  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  We  did  not. 

17.  Question.  State  fully  and  particularly  all  that  passed  between  you 
and  Mr.  Storm,  when  you  first  saw  him  after  receiving  Mr.  Curtis's  letter 
of  April  10? 

Answer.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect,  the  first  question  was,  whether  he 
would  like  to  take  a  job  of  furnishing  the  custom-house ;  whether  he  was 
prepared  with  stock,  with  sufficient  help,  and  other  means  requisite  or 
necessary  to  carry  on  such  a  job.  Mr.  Storm  answered  generally  in  the 
affirmative.  That  was  the  substance  of  the  conversation,  as  far  as  I  can 
recollect. 

18.  Question.  How  many  interviews  or  conversations  did  you  have 
'with  Mr.  Storm  relative  to  furnishing  the  New  York  custom-house,  be- 
tween the  reception  of  Mr.  Curtis's  letter  of  10th  April,  184 1 ,  and  the 
making  of  the  contract  between  Curtis  and  Storm  ? 

Answer.  Some  half  dozen.    I  cannot  say  precisely. 

19.  Question.  Did  any  thing  pass  between  Storm  and  yourself,  either 
before  or  after  the  contract,  upon  the  subject  of  your  taking  a  part  with 
Mr.  Storm  in  the  contract?  and  if  so,  state  what  it  was. 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  at  what  period  of  the  negotiation  Mr.  Storm 
manifested  some  uncertainty  as  to  pecuniary  means,  and  asked  me  if  I 
would  like  to  take  an  interest,  and  furnish  him  with  the  needful.  I  do  not 
recollect  whether  1  gave  him  my  answer  at  that  time,  but  think  that  it 


Hep.  No.  10G5.  61 

» 

was  at  a  subsequent  interview,  that  I  should  decline  having  any  thing  to 
do  with  it. 

20.  Question.  Can  you  not  state  positively  whether  this  proposition  was 
made  before  or  after  the  contract  was  made  ? 

Answer.  It  was  before.  I  told  him  that  he  had  better  see  some  of  his 
friends,  and  ascertain  whether  he  could  command  sufficient  means  to  go 
through  with  the  job ;  and,  at  a  subsequent  interview,  he  told  me  he  had 
succeeded  to  his  wishes,  and  was  ready  to  take  the  contract  if  he  could 
get  it. 

21.  Question.  Between  the  time  that  Mr.  Storm  made  his  proposition 
of  partnership  and  the  reply  which  you  made  to  it,  did  you  see  and  con- 
verse with  Mr.  Curtis  on  the  subject;  and  if  so,  what  conversation  did 
you  have  with  him  ? 

Answer.  I  had  no  conversation  with  Mr.  Curtis  upon  the  proposition 
made  to  me  by  Mr.  Storm. 

22.  Question.  You  say  you  think  you  ought  to  be  paid  a  commission  of 
one  per  cent,  on  the  amount  disbursed  for  furniture  for  the  custom-house. 
Will  you  state  how  often  you  were  accustomed  to  examine  the  progress  of 
the  work  :  how  often  you  visited  the  shop  of  Mr.  Storm ;  and  whether 
you  gave  Mr.  Storm  any  directions  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  work, 
the  time  of  its  execution,  or  any  thing  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  examined  the  work  sometimes  once  a  week,  sometimes  once 
a  fortnight :  the  latter  part  of  the  time  less  frequently.  I  visited  the  shop  of 
Mr.  Storm  as  often  as  I  inspected  the  progress  of  the  work.  I  gave  no 
directions  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  work.  My  only  duty  con- 
sisted in  seeing  that  the  work  was  delivered  as  fast  as  they  were  ready  to 
receive  it.  The  directions  in  relation  to  the  style  of  work  were  given  by 
the  architect,  and  he  alone  should  be  held  responsible  for  the  excess  of 
prices  over  and  above  the  estimates.  The  first  discovery  of  any  variation 
or  material  alteration  from  the  original  estimate  was  not  made  until  after 
the  most  of  the  work  was  finished  or  under  way;  it  was  then  discovered  by 
the  collector,  on  demanding  a  bill  of  what  had  been  furnished.  It  was 
then  discovered  that  it  was  too  late  to  make  any  material  retrenchment. 
The  fact  was,  Mr.  Frazee  was  so  intent  upon  having  the  building  finished 
and  furnished  to  correspond  in  style  with  the  building,  that  he  seemed  to 
have  forgotten  all  reasonable  bounds  of  prudence.  The  collector  knew 
no  more  of  what  he  was  doing,  either  in  the  finishing  or  furnishing  of  the 
building,  than  a  stranger.  In  reference  to  the  principal  items  of  addition- 
al expense,  I  would  name,  in  the  first  place,  the  glass  for  the  cases,  cloth 
for  the  desks,  the  brass  railing  on  the  desks,  the  drapery,  and  some  ad- 
ditional expense  incurred  by  the  heads  of  the  different  bureaus,  to  gratify 
their  taste.  I  superintended  the  time  of  execution,  and  gave  Mr.  Storm 
directions  as  to  the  time  of  delivering,  &c.  1  never  knew  of  any  variations 
from  the  original  plans  or  estimates  until  the  same  was  discovered  by  the 
collector,  as  before  stated. 

23.  Question.  Will  you  state  whether  you  proposed  to  Mr.  Storm  to 
share  the  profits  with  him  in  the  job  ? 

Answer.  I  made  no  such  proposition. 

24.  Question.  Was  Mr.  Storm  in  the  habit  of  making  his  deposites  with, 
you ;  and  if  so,  did  he  ever  overdraw,  and  to  what  extent  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Storm  made  me  his  broker  during  the  time  he  was  en- 
gaged in  this  work.  There  have  been  no  overdrafts  until  some  two  months 
since. 


€2  Rep.  No.  1065. 

• 

25.  Question.  Did  you,  at  your  first  interview  with  Mr.  Storm,  tell  him 
that  Mr.  Curtis  desired  to  see  him? 

Answer.  I  think  my  first  and  perhaps  one  or  two  subsequent  inter- 
views were  confined  to  the  inquiries  as  before  slated,  without  mention  of 
Mr.  Curtis  to  Mr.  Storm. 

26.  Question.  How  long  after  you  received  Mr.  Curtis's  letter  before 
you  applied  to  Mr.  Storm  to  know  if  he  desired  to  undertake  the  job  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  within  two  or  three  days. 

27.  Question.  Who  first  mentioned  to  you  the  name  of  Mr.  Storm,  as  a 
.suitable  person  to  do  the  work? 

Answer.  No  one. 

2S.  Question.  Had  you  had  a  previous  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Storm  ; 
and  if  so,  how  long  had  you  known  him,  and  were  you  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  him? 

Answer.  I  had  no  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  or  any  of  that  class 
of  cabinet  makers — that  is,  those  who  make  the  first  class  of  furniture. 

29.  Question.  Had  you  ever  seen  him  before  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say.    I  had  no  acquaintance  with  him. 

JOSEPH  HOUGH. 


June  7,  1842. 
Testimony  of  Mr.  Joseph  Hough — re- examined. 

30.  Question.  Have  you  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Edward  Curtis  since 
you  came  to  Washington  ? 

Answer.  Supposing  I  have  received  a  dozen  ? 

31.  Question.  Have  you  had  any  correspondence  with  Mr.  Edward  Cur- 
tis, collector,  since  you  came  to  Washington,  on  the  subject  of  this  investi- 
gation ? 

Answer.  I  have  not ;  nor  have  I  ever  had  ten  words  with  him  upon  the 
subject  of  this  investigation. 

32.  Question.  Did  not  Mr.  Storm  hand  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  Edward 
Curtis  since  you  came  here,  in  which  the  subject  of  Storm's  contract  was 
named  ;  and  if  so,  have  you  any  objection  to  furnish  the  committee  with  a 
copy  of  said  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Curtis,  but  cannot  say  whether 
from  Mr.  Storm  or  Mr.  McAuley.  In  that  letter  Mr.  Curtis  says  :  "  Mc- 
Auley  has  told  Storm  so  and  so  about  this  matter.  What  does  this  mean  ?" 
I  have  torn  up  the  letter. 

33.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  recently  with  Mr.  George  Curtis  upon 
the  subject  of  this  investigation ;  and  if  so,  when  and  where,  and  what 
was  said  in  said  conversation  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  Mr.  George  Curtis  several  times  since  he  has  been 
in  the  city,  and  have  conversed  with  him  generally  upon  the  subject  of  this 
investigation,  but  cannot  state  any  particulars  as  to  when  and  where. 

34.  Question.  Have  you  heard  Mr.  George  Curtis  mention  the  particular 
business  that  brought  him  to  Washington  at  this  time  ? 

Answer.  I  have.  He  told  me,  the  first  time  I  saw  him,  that  there  were 
rumors  afloat  that  were  injurious  to  his  brother,  in  regard  to  this  investiga- 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


tion;  and  he  came  on,  either  at  his  own  or  his  brother's  instigation,  to  look 
into  the  matter  on  the  part  of  his  brother,  or  to  attend  to  any  thing  that 
might  be  necessary  on  the  part  of  his  brother. 

35.  Question.  Have  you  told  Mr.  George  Curtis,  during  this  investiga- 
tion, what  its  progress  was,  and  advised  with  him  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Answer.  Not  a  word  ;  neither  has  he  given  any  advice,  in  any  way  or 
shape,  nor  have  I  asked  him  for  any. 

36.  Question.  Do  you  think  that  Mr.  Storm  could  have  overdrawn  upon 
you  during  the  progress  of  his  job  to  as  large  an  amount  as  $200  at  one 
time  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  state,  as  I  have  never  examined  his  account.  He 
might  have  done  to  a  greater,  as  I  should  not  have  refused  his  drafts,  even 
to  the  amount  of  $500. 

JOSEPH  HOUGH. 


June  6,  1842. 
Testimony  of  Abraham  Storm,  being  sworn. 

1.  Question  by  committee.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  oc- 
cupation ? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York,  and  am  a  cabinet  maker  by  profession. 

2.  Question.  Did  you  contract  for  furnishing  furniture  to  the  New  York 
custom-house  ;  if  so,  with  whom  did  you  contract,  and  can  you  furnish  a. 
copy  of  your  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  contracted  for  doing  the  work  for  the  New  York  custom-house 
with  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  collector.  I  cannot  furnish  a  copy  of  the  contract,, 
not  having  brought  it  with  me. 

3.  Question.  By  whom  was  the  proposition  to  contract  for  said  work  first 
made  to  you  ? 

Answer.  The  first  that  I  learned  of  it  was  from  Hough.  No,  sir  ;  I  be- 
lieve I  am  a  little  wrong ;  I  think  the  first  that  I  heard  about  making  prop- 
ositions for  the  contract  was  from  Mr.  Robert  B.  Minturn. 

4.  Question.  What  passed  between  you  and  Mr.  Hough  on  the  subject^ 
when  he  first  proposed  to  you  to  take  the  job  ? 

Answer.  All  that  passed  between  Mr.  Hough  and  myself  was,  that  Mr. 
Hough  said  he  was  requested  to  call  on  me,  and  inform  me  that  the  col- 
lector wished  to  see  me.  I  called  on  the  collector,  and  he  wished  me  to 
give  him  an  estimate  for  the  articles  named  in  the  schedule  which  he  show- 
ed me,  for  the  New  York  custom-house.  I  furnished  the  collector,  several 
days  after  that,  with  such  schedule,  and  upon  it  we  made  the  contract  for 
the  furniture. 

5.  Question.  Was  there  any  proposition  for  a  contract  made  by  Mr.  Hough, 
to  you  ;  and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  the  conversation  which  we  had  at  the  time.  I 
did  not  think  it  of  much  importance,  and  therefore  did  not  charge  my  mem- 
ory with  it.  I  asked  Mr.  Hough,  after  the  contract  was  entered  into,  if  he 
would  like  to  take  a  part  in  it,  and  furnish  means,  for  which  I  was  willing 
to  pay  him  ;  but  he  declined  doing  so,  and  advised  me  to  call  on  some  of 
my  friends.    I  then  called  on  Messrs.  Grinnell,  Minturn,  &  Co.,  being  my 


64 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


friends,  and  asked  their  advice  on  the  subject.  They  agreed  to  loan  me 
whatever  funds  I  should  need,  without  any  remuneration  whatever,  except 
7  per  cent,  interest  per  annum.  They  furnished  the  means  without  any 
security. 

6.  Question.  When  Mr.  Hough  called  on  you,  did  he  present  you  with  a 
schedule  of  the  work  ;  and  if  so,  was  it  the  same  that  was  furnished  by  Mr. 
Curtis  ? 

Answer.  Iam  not  certain  on  that  subject.  The  conversation  with  Mr. 
Hough  was  of  such  a  nature  that  I  did  not  charge  my  memory  with  any 
of  it. 

7.  Question.  Did  you  furnish  Mr.  Hough  with  an  estimate  of  the  prices 
for  which  you  would  do  the  work  ? 

Answer.  No. 

8.  Question.  Did  you  inform  Mr.  Hough  that  you  would  be  enabled  to 
devote  your  entire  time  to  the  work  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

9.  Question.  Did  Mr.  Hough  say  any  thing  to  you  on  the  subject  of  the 
price  ;  and  if  so,  what  did  he  say  ? 

Answer.  He  said  nothing  at  all  in  regard  to  the  price  of  the  furniture. 

10.  Question.  How  many  conversations  did  you  have  with  Mr.  Hough 
before  you  saw  Mr.  Curtis  ? 

Answer.  I  had  but  the  one. 

11.  Question.  After  the  contract  was  made  with  Mr.  Curtis,  and  during 
the  progress  of  the  work,  did  Mr.  Hough  have  any  thing  more  to  do  with 
it ;  and  if  so,  what  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Hough  called  frequently  to  see  how  the  work  progressed, 
and  went  through  my  workshops  to  see  if  the  requisite  number  of  hands 
were  employed  as  stated  to  him,  and  seemed  satisfied  that  the  work  was 
progressing  as  it  should. 

12.  Question.  Was  that  all  the  agency  Mr.  Hough  had,  to  your  know- 
ledge, and  how  often  did  he  call  ? 

Answer.  That  was  all  the  agency  he  had,  to  my  knowledge.  He  some- 
times called  once  a  week,  sometimes  once  a  fortnight,  it  might  be  oftener, 
until  the  furniture  was  completed — about  a  year. 

13.  Question.  Before  the  first  conversation  between  you  and  Mr.  Hough 
closed,  did  he  tell  you  that  you  should  have  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

14.  Question.  Who  did  Mr.  Hough  say  had  requested  him  to  call  on 
you  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector. 

15.  Question.  Have  you  repeated  the  conversation  that  you  had  with 
Mr.  Hough  at  the  first  interview  to  any  body ;  and  if  so,  to  whom  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  I  repeated  it  to  Mr.  Charles  McAuley,  and  asked  his 
advice  on  the  subject,  he  being  a  particular  friend  of  mine.  He  referred  me 
to  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  my  former  friend. 

1 6.  Question.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  McAuley  that  Mr.  Hough  had  proposed 
to  divide  the  profits  of  a  g20,000  or  $25,000  job  with  you  ? 

Answer.  I  don't  think  I  did.  I  cannot  speak  positively  on  this  point, 
having  taken  no  note  of  the  conversation.  I  did  not  calculate  that  Lt 
would  go  any  further,  and  therefore  did  not  treasure  it  in  my  memory. 

17.  Question.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  Mr.  McAuley  on  the  subject  of 
such  a  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Hough  •  and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


65 


Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  said  any  thing  to  Mr.  McAuley  in"  regard  to 
any  division  of  profits  ? 

18.  Question.  How  long  after  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Hough  was  it 
before  you  conversed  with  Mr.  McAuley  ? 

Answer.  The  next  day,  or  within  a  few  days  after,  before  any  thing 
was  done  in  the  matter. 

19.  Question.  Did  Mr.  McAuley  ask  you  how  much  profit  you  would 
make  on  the  job  ? 

Answer.  No. 

20.  Question.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  Mr.  Samuel  Ruckel,  or  in  his 
presence,  on  the  subject  of  your  conversation  with  Mr.  Hough  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Samuel  Ruckel  was  present  at  the  time  that  Mr.  McAuley 
and  I  had  the  conversation  above  alluded  to. 

21.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  with  Mr.  McAuley  or  Ruckel  on 
this  subject,  since  the  conversation  alluded  to  ? 

Answer.  No. 

22.  Question.  Have  you  not  told  Mr.  Ruckel,  within  the  last  three  or 
four  months,  that  the  proposition  made  to  you  by  Mr.  Hough,  before  you 
made  the  contract  with  Mr.  Curtis,  was  not  accepted  by  you  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  recollect  of.  1  have  told  him  since  I  have  been 
here  that  there  was  no  one  in  the  contract  but  myself.  I  am  positive  that 
I  have  not  said  to  Mr.  Ruckel,  or  any  body  else,  that  the  proposition  made 
by  Mr.  Hough  was  not  accepted  by  me. 

23.  Question.  Have  you  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Hough  recently 
on  the  subject  of  the  conversation  between  you  and  himself  about  the 
furniture  ? 

Answer.  No. 

24.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  recently  with  Mr.  Ruckel  on  the 
subject  of  this  investigation  ;  and  if  you  have,  did  you  tell  him  in  that 
conversation  that  Mr.  Hough  did  not  receive  any  thing  from  you,  and  that 
Mr.  McAuley  was  wrong  in  his  conjectures  about  the  matter? 

Answer.  I  had  a  conversation  one  day  last  week  with  Mr.  Ruckel,  and 
did  so  inform  him. 

25.  Question.  Are  you  very  certain  that  in  that  conversation  you  said 
nothing  to  Mr.  Ruckel  about  Mr.  Hough  making  a  proposition  to  you 
about  receiving  something  from  you,  but  that  it  was  objected  to  by  you. 

Answer.  I  am  certain  that  I  did  not. 

26.  Question.  What  was  it  that  you  desired  the  advice  of  Mr.  McAuley 
about  ? 

Answer.  It  was  in  regard  to  this  contract,  whether  he  thought  I  had 
better  take  it  or  not.  Mr.  McAuley  was  the  first  person  I  spoke  to  on  this 
subject,  after  Mr.  Hough  called  on  me. 

27.  Question.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  McAuley,  when  you  called  on  him  for 
his  advice,  what  the  terms  of  the  contract  were  ? 

Answer.  No. 

28.  Question.  How  much  have  you  received  on  your  contract,  who 
has  paid  the  same,  and  how  much  do  you  now  claim  as  due  you  ? 

Answer.  I  have  received  on  the  contract  $18,500  and  odd  dollars,  paid 
to  nis  by  Mr.  Curtis.  I  think  the  amount  due  is  $8,000.  I  have  not  the 
bill  with  me,  having  rendered  it  to  Mr.  Curtis. 

29.  Question.  Did  Mr.  Curtis  propose  to  you,  at  any  time,  to  permit  Mr. 

5 


66  Rep.  No.  106;:. 

William  B.  Shipman  to  make  a  part  of  the  furniture  work  ;  and  if  so,  what 
was  the  proposition  which  he  made  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis  made  such  a  proposition,  about  the  time  of  signing 
the  contract;  as  persons  had  given  him  to  suppose  that  there  might  be 
some  doubts  about  having  the  contract  fulfilled  by  me.  I  removed  those 
doubts,  and  there  was  nothing  more  said  about  it. 

30.  Question.  Did  you  converse  with  Mr.  Shipman  upon  the  subject  of 
his  having  a  part  of  the  job:  and  if  so,  did  you  tell  him  any  thing  upon 
the  subject  of  your  consulting  Mr.  Grinnell,  and  what  was  it? 

Answer.  Mr.  Shipman  called  on  me,  as  he  stated,  at  the  solicitation  of 
Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  and  wished  to  know  if  I  would  not  divide  this 
contract  with  him,  and  let  him  have  half  of  it  to  do.  I  told  him  that  I 
would  call  on  Mr.  Grinnell,  my  friend.  I  called  on  Mr.  Grinnell,  and  he 
advised  me,  by  all  means,  if  I  felt  myself  competent  to  undertake  the  task, 
to  do  the  whole  of  it.  I  informed  Mr.  Shipman  of  this,  and  told  him,  un- 
der those  circumstances,  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  divide  it.  He 
then  seemed  very  angry  at  the  collector,  because  he  did  not  insist  upon 
having  it  divided.  He  said  the  collector  had  not  used  him  well  in  this 
contract.  I  told  him  I  knew  nothing  of  what  had  occurred  between  him 
and  the  collector ;  he  must,  therefore,  not  blame  me  for  keeping  all  I  could 
get. 

31.  Question.  When  was  the  last  payment  made  you  by  Mr.  Curtis, 
and  how  much  was  then  paid  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  last  payment  was  #2,000,  probably  two  or  three 
months  since. 

32.  Question.  Before  you  made  your  estimate  of  prices,  did  you  see  the 
estimate  of  Mr.  John  Horspool ;  and  if  so,  who  exhibited  it  to  you? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

33.  Question.  Was  there  any  estimate  of  prices  exhibited  to  you  before 
you  made  your  estimate  ? 

Answer.  There  was  none. 

34.  Question.  With  whose  aid  did  you  fix  the  prices  of  the  work  in 
your  estimate  ? 

Answer.  None  but  my  own. 

35.  Question.  Did  you  first  inform  Mr.  Hough  or  Mr.  Curtis  of  the 
prices  for  which  you  would  do  the  work  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis. 

36.  Question.  What  was  the  whole  amount  of  your  estimate  as  em- 
braced in  the  contract,  and  what  is  the  whole  amount  which  you  now  esti- 
mate for  the  job  ? 

Answer.  The  whole  amount  of  the  original  contract  was  $13,555.  The 
furniture,  as  far  as  finished,  comes  to  $26,000  and  odd  dollars.  The  bal- 
ance to  be  furnished  will  not  exceed  three  hundred  dollars. 

37.  Question.  What  amount  of  money  did  you  borrow  of  Messrs.  Grin- 
nell &  Minturn  during  the  prosecution  of  the  work,  and  do  you  now  owe 
them  a  balance  on  such  loans;  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 

Answer.  I  obtained  from  Grinnell,  Minturn,  &  Co.,  some  $2,000,  per- 
haps more.    They  have  received  of  that,  I  think,  a  little  over  $1,000. 

38.  Question.  Did  you  borrow  any  thing,  during  the  progress  of  the 
work,  of  Mr.  Hough  :  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not.  When  I  received  my  money  from  Mr.  Curtis  I  de- 
posited it  with  Mr.  Hough,  and  checked  upon  it  as  I  wished  it ;  and  when 


\ 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Mr.  Curtis  did  not  pay  me,  Mr.  Hough  permitted  me  to  overdraw  the 
balance. 

39.  Question.  Had  you  any  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Hough,  previous  to 
the  interview  with  him  in  regard  to  the  furniture  ;  and  if  so,  how  long 
had  you  known  him  ? 

Answer.  I  was  not  particularly  acquainted  with  Mr.  Hough  before  the 
interview.  I  have  known  him  for  some  time  as  a  bowing  acquaintance,  and 
had  done  some  little  business  w  t  i  him,  but  nothing  by  which  he  would 
remember  me  more  than  any  other  person  with  whom  he  had  had  small 
business. 

40.  Question.  At  the  time  you  made  the  contract,  had  you  a  shop  in 
New  York,  what  was  your  capital,  and  how  many  hands  had  you  em- 
ployed ? 

Answer.  I  had  a  shop  in  the  city  of  New  York,  No.  536  Broadway.  I 
employed,  previous  to  the  contract,  six  men,  with  a  capital  of  about  $5,000. 

41.  Question.  Did  you  understand,  from  Mr.  Curtis  or  Mr.  Hough,  that 
it  was  the  business  of  Mr.  Hough  to  see  that  the  furniture  was  ready  to  be 
delivered  as  wanted,  and  did  Mr.  Hough  exercise  any  such  agency  during 
the  prosecution  of  the  work  ? 

Answer.  I  never  understood  that  Mr.  Hough  acted  as  agent  in  anyway. 

42.  Question.  Has  Mr.  Curtis  assigned  to  you  any  reason  why  the  bal- 
ance, which  you  now  claim  on  the  contract,  has  not  been  paid  ;  and  if  so, 
what  reason  has  he  asssigned  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis  assigned,  as  the  reason  for  not  paying  the  balance, 
that  he  had  paid  as  far  as  he  felt  himself  authorized  by  the  contract.  This 
was  at  the  last  time  I  asked  him  for  money,  about  one  month  ago. 

43.  Question.  Who  directed  the  variations  in  the  furniture  from  the 
original  contract,  what  was  the  cause  of  such  variations,  and  when  were 
such  variations  first  suggested  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Frazee  directed  the  alterations  from  the  original  contract 
before  any  thing  was  completed.  The  cause  I  do  not  know,  unless  to  car- 
ry out  Mr.  Frazee's  plans. 

44.  Question.  After  the  work  was  varied  from  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
were  the  prices,  in  any  instance,  made  lower;  or  were  they,  in  every  in- 
stance, higher  than  the  original  contract  price  ? 

Answer.  In  every  instance  the  prices  were  higher. 

45.  Question.  At  the  time  you  made  your  contract,  had  Mr.  William  B. 
Shipman  a  cabinet  shop  in  New  York ;  and  if  so,  what  do  you  suppose 
was  his  capital,  and  how  many  hands  had  he  in  his  employment  ? 

Answer.  He  had  a  shop  in  New  York.  I  cannot  say  as  to  his  capital. 
His  establishment  was  larger  than  mine.  At  the  time  of  the  contract  he 
had,  I  presume,  as  many  hands  as  I  had.  He  might  have  had  more,  say 
some  8  or  10. 

46.  Question.  Has  Mr.  Curtis  told  you  that  he  would  pay  you  the  bal- 
ance of  your  bill  so  soon  as  he  received  the  money  in  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  No,  he  has  not. 

47.  Question.  When  did  you  hold  the  last  conversation  with  Mr.  Curtis 
on  the  subject  of  your  contract  ? 

Answer.  A  month  or  three  weeks  ago. 

48.  Question.  Can  you  not  repeat  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Curtis  at 
the  first  interview  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


49.  Question.  To  whom  do  you  consider  yourself  indebted  for  procuring 
you  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  To  my  friends,  Messrs.  Grinnell,  Minturn,  &  Co.  I  will  name, 
amongst  them,  Mr.  George  Griflin,  of  New  York. 

50.  Question.  Did  you  pay  your  hands  daily,  weekly,  or  monthly  ? 
Answer.  Weekly. 

51.  Question.  Did  you  pay  them  in  money,  or  by  drafts  or  checks  ;  and 
if  the  latter,  on  whom  did  you  draw  ? 

Answer.  I  paid  them  in  money. 

52.  Question.  What  did  you  think  as  to  the  circumstance  of  Mr.  Hough's 
continually  visiting  your  shop  ? 

Answer.  I  presumed  he  came  at  the  solicitation  of  the  collector. 

53.  Question.  Can  you  state,  positively,  whether  Mr.  Hough  did  submit 
to  you  an  estimate  of  the  work  in  the  first  interview  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not.    I  am  positive  he  said  nothing  about  the  prices. 

54.  Question.  Through  whom  was  the  order  for  the  alteration  of  the 
furniture  communicated  to  you. 

Answer.  Mr.  F razee. 

55.  Question.  What  profit  do  you  suppose  you  will  make  on  the  job  ? 
Answer.  I  could  not  undertake  to  say;  I  think  I  ought  to  make  10  pel 

cent. 

56.  Question.  Could  the  agency  or  services  of  Mr.  Hough,  as  known  to 
yon,  have  been  of  the  least  advantage  to  the  Government  or  to  yourself? 

Answer.  They  could  have  been  of  no  advantage  to  me.  They  might 
have  been  to  the  Government,  as  I  understood  Mr.  Curtis  had  selected  him 
to  procure  some  person  or  persons  to  do  this  work. 

57.  Question.  Could  they  have  been  of  any  possible  advantage  to  the 
Government  after  the  execution  of  the  contract  ? 

Answer.  They  could  not. 

58.  Question.  You  have  stated  that  the  last  conversation  you  had  with 
Mr.  Curtis  on  the  subject  of  your  contract  was  a  month  or  three  weeks  ago; 
state  what  that  conversation  was. 

Answer.  I  asked  him  if  he  could  let  me  have  some  money,  and  his  re- 
ply was,  he  could  not. 

59.  Question.  At  the  time  the  original  plan  of  the  work  was  changed, 
after  you  had  made  the  contract,  do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Curtis  was  in- 
formed of  such  change  ;  and  if  not,  then  how  long  after  was  it  before  he 
•was  so  informed  ? 

Answer.  He  was  not  informed  of  the  change,  that  I  know  of,  until  after 
ihe  naval  and  surveyors'  offices  were  furnished.  He  then  blamed  me  very 
much,  indeed,  for  not  informing  him  of  the  change.  I  told  him  that  I  could 
not  conceive  that  I  had  any  right  to  do  so  at  all;  for  I  supposed  that  Mr. 
jFrazee  informed  him  in  relation  to  the  matter  altogether.  He  seemed  quite 
angry  with  me,  and  wished  me  to  retrench  if  there  was  a  possibility  for  it. 
3  told  him  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  do  so — that  every  thing  was  in 
such  a  state  we  could  not  alter  it.  This  was  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of 
last  summer. 

60.  Question.  How  many  conversations  did  you  have  with  Mr.  Hough 
upon  the  subject  of  the  furniture  for  the  custom-house  before  you  made  the 
contract  with  Mr.  Curtis  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  only  one;  I  recollect  of  no  other. 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


69 


61.  Question.  Did  Mr.  Hough,  at  your  first  interview  on  the  subject  of 
the  furniture,  exhibit  to  you  a  list  of  the  articles  of  furniture  to  be  furnished? 

Answer.  I  think  not.  1  called  on  Mr.  Hough  at  his  office  some  time  af- 
terwards, and  he  then  handed  me  a  list. 

62.  Question.  When  Mr.  Hough  first  called  on  you,  did  he  say  any  thing- 
to  you  on  the  subject  of  your  stock,  materials,  hands,  &c? 

Answer.  Yes,  he  did.  He  asked  me  what  number  of  hands  I  employed,, 
and  what  number  I  could  employ,  in  my  place.  I  told  him  I  could  em- 
ploy twenty  in  it;  but  if  1  got  the  contract,  and  it  was  necessary,  I  would 
employ  forty  men. 

63.  Question.  What  did  Mr.  Robert  B.  Minturn  say  to  you  when  he 
first  advised  you  to  propose  for  the  contract? 

Answer.  When  I  heard  of  Mr.  Curtis's  appointment  as  collector  of  the 
custom-house,  I  called  on  Mr.  Minturn,  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  whether 
the  contract  for  furnishing  the  custom-house  was  given  out  yet.  He  told 
me  he  did  not  know,  but  he  thought  not;  but  he  would  give  me  a  letter  of 
introduction  to  Mr.  Curtis;  which  he  did,  and  I  presented  it. 

ABRAHAM  STORM. 


June  7,  1S42. 
Testimony  of  Abraham  Storm,  in  continuation. 

64.  Question.  Have  you,  since  you  left  the  city  of  New  York,  held  a  cor- 
respondence with  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector,  on  the  subject  of  the 
investigation  of  this  committee  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not — with  no  person. 

65.  Question.  Did  you  receive  a  letter  from  Mr.  Edward  Curtis  by  Mr. 
McAuley  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

66.  Question.  Have  you  any  objection  to  furnishing  the  committee  with, 
a  copy  of  that  letter  ? 

Answer.  The  envelope  was  directed  to  me.  It  contained  an  enclosure 
for  another  person.    I  would  furnish  the  letter  if  it  had  been  for  me. 

67.  Question.  To  whom  was  the  letter  directed,  after  the  envelope  was 
taken  off? 

Answer.  Joseph  Hough. 

68.  Question.  Did  you  deliver  the  letter  to  Mr.  Hough  ? 
Answer.  I  did. 

69.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  recently  with  Mr.  George  Curtis  upon 
the  subject  of  your  contract  for  furniture,  or  the  balance  due  you ;  and  if 
so,  what  was  said  conversation,  when  was  it  had,  and  how  often  have 
you  so  conversed  ? 

Answer.  I  never  had  any  such  conversation.  I  never  spoke  to  George 
Curtis  in  my  life. 

70.  Question.  Did  you  direct  your  foreman,  before  you  left  New  York,  to 
call  on  Mr.  McAuley  as  he  came  on  here  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

71.  Question.  Have  you  heard  the  letter  delivered  to  Mr.  Hough  by  you 
ead,  or  been  otherwise  informed  of  its  contents  ?  If  so,  do  you  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  state  them  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  heard  it  read,  or  been  informed  of  its  contents. 


70 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


72.  -  Question.  Was  there  anything  written  upon  the  envelope  of  the  let- 
ter  addressed  to  you,  and  was  the  direction  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Cur- 
tis, the  collector  ? 

Answer.  There  was  nothing  written  on  the  inside  of  the  envelope.  I 
think  the  direction  of  the  envelope  was  not  in'Mr.  Curtis's  handwriting. 

73.  Question.  In  what  sums  was  Mr.  Curtis  in  the  habit  of  paying  you, 
from  time  to  time,  during  the  progress  of  your  job  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  the  lowest  sum  I  received  was  Si ,000,  and  the  high- 
est $3,000. 

74.  Question.  To  what  amount  have  your  ever  overdrawn  upon  Mr. 
Hough,  since  you  first  commenced  making  deposites  with  him  ? 

Answer.  I  think  sometimes  from  S200  to  $500.  I  do  not  think  it  ex- 
ceeded 55500  at  any  one  time. 

75.  Question.  How  long  was  it  after  you  commenced  the  job  before  you 
received  the  first  payment  from  Mr.  Curtis? 

Answer.  It  was  after  the  furniture  went  into  the  naval  oflice.  I  cannot 
state  the  time  precisely. 

76.  Question.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Curtis  before  you  left  New  York  for  this 
city,  within  a  few  days;  and  if  so,  had  you  any  conversation  with  him  on 
the  subject  of  this  investigation  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  Mr.  Curtis  on  Saturday  before  last.  I  had  no  conversa- 
tion with  him  in  regard  to  this  investigation.  He  stopped  in  as  he  was  go- 
ing by  my  place,  and  I  then  told  him  that  I  was  subpoenaed  to  come  on 
to  Washington.  He  said  he  hoped  I  would  come.  I  told  him  I  did  not 
know  how  it  would  be,  as  I  was  unwell  and  my  family  unwell;  I  thought 
I  would  not  come.  He  called  again  on  Sunday  afternoon,  and  urged  so 
hard  that  I  consented  to  come. 

ABRAHAM  STORM. 


June  4,  1842. 

Testimony  of  William  B.  Shipman.  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  where  do  you- 
reside  ? 

Answer.  Cabinet  maker;  in  the  city -of  New  York. 

Question.  Will  you  state  if  you  were  called  upon  by  any  person,  and  if 
so,  by  whom,  to  furnish  the  cabinet  work  of  the  New  York  custom-house, 
and  what  was  the  nature  of  the  offer  or  the  proposal  made  to  you  ? 

Answer.  I  was  not  called  upon  at  all. 

Question.  Have  you  had  at  any  time  any  conversation,  with  any  person, 
upon  the  subject  of  contracting  for  the  cabinet  work  for  the  New  York 
custom-house;  and  if  so,  with  whom  was  that  conversation  held,  and  what 
-was  it  ? 

Answer.  The  principal  conversation  I  had  was  with  Mr.  Curtis,  the  col- 
lector. I  applied  to  Mr.  Curtis  for  permission  to  make  an  estimate  for  the 
furniture  of  the  custom-house.  He  told  me  at  the  time  that  he  had  no 
authority  to  furnish  it,  (this  was  between  the  7th  and  15th  of  April  1841,) 
but  that  as  soon  as  he  got  authority  he  would  let  me  know.  A  few  days 
previous  to  the  22d  of  April,  1841, 1  called  upon  him  again.  He  told  me  then 
that  he  had  two  estimates  for  the  furniture,  one  of  which  he  had  concluded 


Sep.  No.  1065. 


71 


to  accept.  1  expressed  a  disappointment  at  not  having  an  opportunity  of 
estimating  for  the  work,  and  he  expressed  his  regret  at  not  thinking  of  my 
application,  and  asked  me  if  I  thought  I  could  do  it  lower  than  the  esti- 
mate, but  did  not  tell  me  what  the  estimate  was.  I  replied,  that  I  should 
like  to  have  an  opportunity  of  trying.  I  asked  him  who  these  estimates 
were  from.  He  said  one  was  from  Mr.  Horspool,  and  the  other  from  Mr. 
Storm.  Mr.  Storm's,  he  said,  was  so  much  lower  than  Mr.  Horspool's,  that 
he  had  concluded  to  close  with  him.  I  was  told  by  Mr.  Horspool,  after- 
wards, that  his  estimate  was  about  $18,509  for  the  whole  job. 

Mr.  Curtis,  at  this  time,  told  me  that  he  called  a  friend  in  to  select  a 
person  suitable  to  make  this  furniture,  and  that  his  friend  had  named  Mr. 
Storm  as  a  suitable  person  to  do  it.  He  also  stated,  that  while  on  a  visit 
to  Mr.  Grinnell's,  it  was  proposed  to  him  there,  by  Mrs.  Grinnell,  that  Mr. 
Storm  should  make  the  furniture.  I  suggested  to  Mr.  Curtis  the  propriety 
ot  having  two  or  more  cabinet  makers  to  make  the  furniture,  on  account 
of  the  shortness  of  time,  as  it  was  to  be  finished  by  the  1st  of  August.  I 
did  not  think  that  any  one  cabinet  maker  could  take  that  job,  and  do  the 
work  as  it  ought  to  be  finished  in  so  short  a  time.  He  said,  then,  he  would 
speak  to  Mr.  Storm  about  giving  me  a  part  of  it  to  do,  and  if  I  would  call 
the  next  day  he  would  let  me  know  what  he  would  do.  I  accordingly 
called  on  Mr.  Curtis,  and  he  informed  me  that  Mr.  Storm  spoke  favorably 
of  letting  me  take  a  part  of  the  work.  I  called  on  Mr.  Storm  afterwards, 
and  he  told  me  that  he  would  have  no  objections  to  my  having  a  share  of 
it,  provided  Mr.  Grinnell  was  willing;  as  he  got  him  the  job,  he  would  have 
to  consult  him  about  it.  I  called  again  on  Mr.  Storm.  He  told  me  that 
he  asked  Mr.  Grinnell  about  it,  and  Mr.  Grinnell  made  answer  :  "  Mr. 
Storm,  we  have  got  you  the  job,  and  you  must  do  it,  and  wc  will  see  you 
out  in  it." 

Mr.  Storm  also  read  me  the  contract  with  Mr.  Curtis  for  the  furniture, 
which  embraced  the  making  of  the  whole  for  the  custom-house.  I  then 
thought  it  useless  to  proceed  or  inquire  further. 

.  Question.  Did  you  hear  at  any  time  that  Mr.  Hough  was  in  any  way 
connected  with  the  business  of  the  contract  for  furnishing  the  New  York 
custom-house? 

Answer.  I  did,  at  or  about  the  time  the  matter  was  pending;  and  then  I 
supposed  that  he  was  the  friend  who  was  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Curtis  in  the 
interview  between  him  and  myself. 

Question.  How  did  you  learn  that  furniture  was  to  be  furnished  for  the 
custom-house  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  distinctly. 

Question.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Curtis  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I  was  not,  but  became  acquainted  with  him  by  means  of  a 
letter  of  introduction  from  a  friend,  which  related  to  the  subject  of  furnish- 
ing the  custom-house. 

Question.  Was  that  friend  a  particular  acquaintance  or  friend  of  Mr. 
Curtis  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  he  was. 

Question.  Did  you  consult  with  that  friend  after  he  had  given  you  the 
letter  of  introduction  to  Mr.  Curtis? 
Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Was  this  friend  advised  of  Mr.  Hough's  agency  in  this  matter? 
Answer.  No,  not  until  1  told  him. 


72 


Bep.  No.  1065. 


Question.  What  then  was  his  opinion  of  the  probability  of  your  getting- 
the  contract  ? 

Answer.  He  thought  it  useless  to  do  any  thing  further  about  it. 
Question.  Why  ? 

Answer.  As  he  said,  Mr.  Hough  had  done  Mr.  Curtis  favors  that  he 
thought  put  him  under  obligations  to  Mr.  Hough. 

Question.  Was  this  friend  of  vours  a  man  of  hiah  standing  in  New 
York? 

Answer.  He  was. 

Question.  What  was  the  name  of  that  friend  ? 

Answer.  J.  Prescott  Hall,  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  Cannot  you  define  more  particularly  the  time  of  your  first 
interview  with  Mr.  Curtis  ? 

Answer.  It  must  have  been  about  the  10th  of  April,  1841  ;  the  interviews 
could  not  have  been  longer  than  10  days  apart,  and  the  last  interview  was 
between  the  20th  and  22d  of  said  month. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Storm  ? 

Answer.  Since  1825  or  1S26. 

Question.  Was  he  ever  in  your  employ? 

Answer.  He  was  in  my  employment  for  five  years  as  foreman. 
Testimony  of  Charles  McAuley,  being  sworn. 

1.  Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  where  do  you 
reside  ? 

Answer.  I  am  an  upholsterer.  I  reside  at  Cornwall,  Orange  county, 
New  York. 

2.  Question.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Abraham  Storm, 
in  relation  to  a  contract  for  furniture  for  the  New  York  custom-house  ? 
and  if  so, 'state  when,  v/here,  and  what  said  conversation  was. 

Answer.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Abraham  Storm  at  my  store, 
the  time  I  do  not  particularly  recollect,  something  over  a  year  since,  at 
any  rate  prior  to  the  closing  of  the  contract  for  furniture  for  the  New  York 
custom-house.  He  told  me,  immediately  after  Mr.  Curtis'  was  appointed 
as  collector  at  New  York,  that  he  made  application  for  the  work  of  the 
furniture  of  the  building;  that  some  two  or  three  days  after  Mr.  Hough,  a 
broker,  residing  in  Broadway,  called  upon  him  and  asked  him  if  he  would 
divide  the  profits  with  him  if  he  would  give  him  a  job  of  from  $20,000  to 
{§25,000  ;  that  Mr.  Storm  ascertained  from  him  what  the  job  was,  and  told 
him  to  call  the  next  day,  and  he  would  give  him  an  answer.  Mr.  Storm 
called  on  me  that  evening  at  my  house,  and  stated  these  circumstances, 
knowing  that  I  felt  friendly  towards  him,  to  get  my  advice  in  regard  to  the 
business.  It  was  rather  a  matter  of  astonishment  to  me,  as  well  as  to  Mr. 
Storm,  that  an  offer  should  have  been  made  through  Mr.  Hough. 

I  was  not  able  to  give  him  any  advice,  except  recommending  him  to  lay 
this  whole  matter  before  Moses  H.  Grirmell,  who  had  given  him  letter-  o: 
recommendation  to  Mr.  Curtis  in  regard  to  the  work.  Mr.  Storm  was  a 
cabinet  maker  in  Broadway. 

3.  Question.  Did  Mr.  Storm  say  any  thing  to  you  in  relation  to  his  be- 
ing enabled  to  add  to  the  price  of  the  work  as  it  progressed,  or  to  add  to 
the  different  articles  enough  to  make  up  the  profit  on  the  job,  either  then 
or  at  any  subsequent  time. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Answer.  No  ;  that  same  evening,  before  Mr.  Storm  went  away,  he  had 
probably  half  an  hour  to  spare.  In  talking  over  this  matter  with  him,  E 
asked  him,  that  in  case  Mr.  Hough  obtained  this  job  for  him,  what  they 
would  make  by  it  ?  The  precise  amount  which  he  named  I  do  not  now 
remember.  I  do  not  recollect  particularly  where  these  conversations  took 
place,  but  my  impression  is  that  they  were  at  my  store. 

4.  Question.  Did  you  or  not,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Joseph  R.  Bleecker, 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  say  to  Mr.  Bleecker  that  Mr.  Storm  had  told  you 
that  he  (Storm)  would  clear  six  thousand  dollars  from  the  contract,  and 
that  Hough  would  receive  as  much  more  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  that  I  did.  I  stated  to  Mr.  Bleecker  precisely 
what  I  have  stated  to  this  committee,  but  said  to  Mr.  Bleecker  that,  at  the 
time  Mr.  Storm  told  me  what  I  have  above  stated,  I  asked  Storm  what  he 
would  probably  make  by  the  job  in  case  he  obtained  it.  I  do  not  now 
recollect  what  the  amount  was,  and  cannot  say  whether  I  stated  it  to  Mr, 
Bleecker  or  not. 

5.  Question.  How  long  was  it  after  the  conversation  with  Storm  before 
you  held  the  conversation  to  which  you  have  alluded  with  Mr.  Bleecker  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  positively.  It  was  the  first  time,  I  believe,  that 
I  visited  the  city  afterwards.  Mr.  Bleecker  was  sick,  and  I  called  to  see 
him. 

6.  Question.  Who  was  present  when  you  had  the  conversation  with 
Mr.  Bleecker  ? 

Answer.  Mrs.  Bleecker  was  present,  I  think. 

7.  Question.  Have  you  held  another  conversation  with  Mr.  Bleecker 
since  then,  at  which  Mr.  Samuel  Ruckel  was  present,  or  do  you  recollect 
whether  Mr.  Ruckel  was  present  at  any  conversation  held  with  Mr.  Bleecker 
on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Storm's  contract. 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  Mr.  Ruckel  might  or  might  not  have  been 
present. 

8.  Question.  Did  you  ever  hold  a  conversation  with  any  other  person, 
than  Mr.  Bleecker  on  the  subject  of  what  Mr.  Storm  had  said  to  you, 
and  if  so,  with  whom  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  I  have  spoken  to  more  than  one,  but  to  whom 
I  cannot  say. 

9.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  with  any  body  in  the  city  of  New 
York  recently  on  this  subject  ? 

Answer.  I  conversed  with  Mr.  Bleecker  as  I  came  through  the  city  of 
New  York. 

10.  Question.  Did  you  converse  with  any  body  beside  Mr.  Bleecker  on 
this  subject  as  you  came  through  New  York  ?  If  so,  state  who  it  was. 

Answer.  Yes,  with  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector. 

11.  Question.  State  the  substance  of  the  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
Curtis,  and  how  that  conversation  was  introduced. 

Answer.  He  (Mr.  Edward  Curtis)  called  at  my  store  in  New  York,  on 
Wednesday  morning  of  this  week,  before  I  left  the  city,  at  about  8  o'clock; 
I  left  at  9  o'clock.  He  asked  me  if  I  was  coming  on  to  Washington  as  a 
witness.  I  answered,  yes.  He  then  asked  me  what  I  knew  about  the  mat- 
ter ;  and  I  then  related  to  him  the  conversation  that  I  had  with  Mr.  Storm 
at  my  house.  He  then  asked  me  if  I  knew  that  Mr.  Storm  paid  Mr. 
Hough  any  thing,  and  I  answered  no;  that  I  had  had  no  conversation  with. 
Mr.  Storm  since ;  that  I  knew  nothing  about  the  matter.  Mr.  Curtis  then  said 


74  Rep.  No.  1065. 


he  did  not  believe  that  Mr.  Storm  had  paid  Mr.  Hough  any  thing :  that  lie 
(Mr.  Curtis)  had  employed  Mr.  Hough  to  attend  to  this  business  for  him. 
He  said  he  had  found  Mr.  Hough  to  be  an  honest  and  honorable  man  in  all 
his  dealings — a  man  in  whom  he  had  entire  confidence  ;  and  that  this  bu- 
siness was  got  up  by  some  of  his  (Mr.  Curtis's)  political  enemies,  mention- 
ing Mr.  Bleecker  and  a  person  by  the  name  of  D wight,  or  some  such  name. 
He  said  he  was  afraid  it  was  going  to  be  a  mischievous  affair :  and  thus 
the  conversation  closed. 

Mr.  Curtis  appeared  to  be  somewhat  excited  when  I  told  him  Mr.  Hough 
had  spoken  to  Mr.  Storm  about  dividing  the  profits.  He  said  he  did  not 
believe  that  there  had  been  a  bargain  of  that  kind  made. 

12.  Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  Mr.  Storm  say  that  there  was  any 
thing  due  him  on  that  contract  ;  and  if  so,  how  much? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  he  said  there  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  S8.000  due  him. 
This  conversation,  I  think,  was  since  the  day  I  came  to  Washington. 


Monday  Morning,  June  G,  1S42. 

Mr.  McAuley  desired  to  state  that  he  is  not  now  certain  whether  the 
interrogatory  propounded  by  him  to  Mr.  Storm,  as  mentioned  in  his  an- 
swer to  the  third  question,  was  as  to  the  profit  which  they"  (meaning 
Hough  and  Storm)  or  which  "  Ac"  (Storm)  would  make. 

13.  Question.  Did  you  not  use  the  word  *  they"  in  your  original  testi- 
mony on  Saturday  last  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

14.  Question.  Have  you  conversed  with  Mr.  Hough  or  Mr.  Storm  on 
this  subject  since  Saturday  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  conversed  with  any  person  on  the  subject,  but  have 
been  merely  considering  the  testimony  in  mv  own  mind. 

CHARLES  McAULEY. 


June  7,  1842. 

Testimony  of  Charles  McJiuley,  in  continuation. 

Question.  Have  you,  at  any  time,  ever  told  Mr.  Bleecker  that  you  would 
be  glad  to  see  the  whole  matter  in  regard  to  the  furniture  contract  of  Storm 
exposed,  but  would  rather  it  should  be  kept  quiet  until  Storm  had  received 
all  his  money  ? 

Answer.  I  have  told  Mr.  Bleecker  that  I  would  be  glad  to  see  the  whole 
matter  connected  with  the  custom-house  exposed  ;  but  that  I  would  rather 
it  should  be  kept  quiet  until  Storm  had  received  his  pay. 

Question.  Have  you  been  informed  of  the  progress  of  Storm's  work  from 
time  to  time,  and  have  you  not  also  known  how  much  money  was  received 
by  Storm  at  the  several  times  that  he  was  paid  by  the  collector  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  have  known  nothing  about  it. 

Question.  Why  did  you  desire  the  matter  kept  secret  until  Storm  should 
receive  all  his  money  ? 


Rep.  "JSTo.  1065. 


75 


Answer.  Because,  while  I  had  no  knowledge  of  there  being  fraud,  I  was 
fearful  it  would  delay  him  in  obtaining  his  money. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  the  foreman  of  Mr.  Storm's 
shop,  after  you  were  subpoenaed  to  come  to  Washington,  and  before  you  left 
New  York  ?  and  if  so,  state  what  that  conversation  was,  and  how  it  was 
introduced. 

Answer^  I  met  the  foreman  of  Mr.  Storm's  establishment  in  the  street, 
and  asked  him  if  Mr.  Storm  had  gone  on  to  Washington.  This  was  on 
my  way  from  the  boat  to  the  store,  after  I  had  left  home  for  Washington. 
He  replied,  that  he  started  that  morning,  or,  at  any  rate,  that  he  had  gone 
on.  He  asked  me,  I  think,  why  I  was  a  witness,  or  what  I  knew  about 
it;  and  I  stated  to  him  what  I  have  detailed  as  the  conversation  with  Mr. 
Storm,  in  answer  to  the  second  question  of  my  examination  before  this 
committee.  He  then  replied,  that  if  any  bargain  had  been  made  between 
Mr.  Hough  and  Mr.  Storm,  he  knew  nothing  about  it. 

Question.  Did  the  foreman  of  Mr.  Storm,  in  this  conversation,  tell  you 
that  Mr.  Storm  desired  to  see  you  before  any  body  else  saw  you  ?  ' 

Answer.  No.  He  said  that  he  wished  that  Mr.  Storm  could  see  me  be- 
fore any  other  person. 

Question.  Did  he  tell  you  that  the  committee  would  get  nothing  out  of 
Storm  ? 

Answer.  No,  not  that  I  remember. 

Question.  Did  he  hand  you  a  letter  from  Storm  ? 

Answer.  No.  I  brought  a  letter  in  my  hat  from  Mr.  Curtis,  who  gave  it 
to  me,  for  Mr.  Storm  ;  which  letter  I  delivered  to  him. 

Question.  What  did  Mr.  Curtis  tell  you  when  he  gave  you  the  letter? 

Answer.  He  asked  me  if  I  would  hand  it  to  Mr.  Storm.  This  was  at 
my  store,  when  the  conversation  already  detailed  took  place. 

Question.  Although  you  had  no  direct  knowledge  of  there  being  fraud 
connected  with  Storm's  contract,  did  you  not,  from  all  the  circumstances 
which  came  to  your  knowledge,  believe  that  it  existed  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  answer  that  question.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  talk 
going  on  in  the  city,  and  I  thought  it  was  better  for  all  parties  that  an  ex- 
amination should  take  place.  I  certainly  felt  some  interest  in  it,  because 
the  fraud  was  charged  against  the  political  party  with  which  I  was  con- 
nected. 

Question.  Have  you  repeated  the  conversation  that  you  had  with  Mr. 
Storm's  foreman,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bleecker? 

Answer.  I  have  not  to  Mrs.  Bleecker,  in  Washington.  I  might  have 
mentioned  it  at  my  store  in  New  York  in  the  presence  of  both  of  them,  as 
they  came  to  my  store  shortly  after  I  had  the  interview  with  Storm's  foreman. 

Question.  Have  you  or  not  told  Mr.  Bleecker  that  Storm  meant  to  be 
honest,  but  that  his  job  was  too  great  a  temptation  for  him  to  withstand  ? 

Answer.  No  ;  I  have  not,  at  any  time. 

Question.  Have  you  conversed  recently  with  Mr.  George  Curtis,  upon 
the  subject  of  Storm's  contract;  and  if  so,  what  was  said  conversation, 
when  was  it  had,  and  how  often  have  you  so  conversed  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  spoken  to  Mr.  George  Curtis  in  my  life.  1  should 
not  know  him  if  I  met  him. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  Bleecker,  in  any  of  the  conversations  that  you  have 
had  with  him,  told  you  that  it  was  probable  that  Storm  would  deny  every 
thing ;  and  if  so,  what  was  your  reply  ? 


76 


Sep.  Xo.  1065. 


Answer.  He  mentioned  something  to  that  amount.  He  stated  that  Storm 
would  deny ;  and  my  reply  was,  that  the  committee  would  be  compelled 
to  question  Storm  very  closely  or  minutely,  as  lie  was  a  very  stubborn  man. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  Storm  at  no  time  told  you  how  much  he  would  make 
by  the  furniture  job  ? 

Answer.  No. 

CHARLES  McAULEY. 


June  4,  1S42. 

Testimony  of  Samuel  Iiucke/,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  the  committee.  What  is  your  occupation, and  where  do  you 
reside  ? 

Answer.  Upholsterer.    I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Charles  Mc- 
Auley,  or  heard  him  say  any  thing  in  relation  to  a  conversation  between 
him  and  Mr.  Storm,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Storm's  contract  for  furnishing  the 
furniture  of  the  New  York  custom-house  ?  If  so,  state  what  that  conversa- 
tion was,  and  when  and  where  it  took  place. 

Answer.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  McAuley,  who  stated  that  he 
understood  that  Mr.  Storm  had  obtained  a  contract  for  furnishing  the  New- 
York  custom-house.  He  appeared  to  be  pleased  that  Mr.  Storm  had  ob- 
tained the  work. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  heard  Mr.  Storm  say,  at  any  time,  any  thing  in 
relation  to  his  furnishing  furniture  for  the  custom-house  at  New  York ; 
and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have.  At  the  time  Mr.  Storm  was  applied  to  first,  he  called 
on  Mr.  McAuley  and  stated  that  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Hough,  a 
broker  in  Broadway,  New  York,  had  called  on  him,  and  desired  estimates 
for  furnishing  the  custom-house,  and  wished  Mr.  McAuley's  advice  as  to 
what  he  should  do  in  the  matter.  Mr.  McAuley  advised  him  to  see  Moses 
H.  Grinnell,  or  Mr.  Minturn,  Mr.  Grinnell's  partner,  and  take  their  ad- 
vice, and,  whatever  it  was,  to  be  governed  by  it. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Storm,  at  that  or  any  subsequent  time,  state  in 
your  presence  what  proposition  Mr.  Hough  had  made  to  him  in  relation, 
to  the  furnishing  of  the  furniture  for  the  custom-house?  If  so,  state  what 
that  proposition  was. 

Answer.  I  understood,  from  Mr.  Storm,  that  Mr.  Hough  wished  a  cer- 
tain per  centage  or  bonus  from  him  (Mr.  Storm)  upon  the  amount  of  profits, 
and  that  he  had  made  that  proposition  to  Mr.  Storm.  The  amount  of  per 
centage  I  did  not  know,  neither  do  I  know  that  the  proposition  was  ac- 
ceded to. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Storm  on  the  sair.  ? 
subject  since  that  time  ?  and  if  so,  state  whether,  in  any  of  those  conver- 
sations, Mr.  Storm  has  told  you  the  terms  of  the  contract  or  understanding 
between  him  and  Mr.  Hough,  or  any  thing  about  what  Mr.  Hough  was  to 
receive. 

Answer.  I  have  had  conversations,  and  understood  from  Mr.  Storm  that 
Mr.  Hough  did  not  receive  one  penny  from  Mr.  Storm :  nor  did  he  (Storm) 


\ 


Rep.  No.  1065.  77 

expect  to  pay  him  any  thing;  that  Mr.  Hough's  proposition  was  not  acced- 
ed to. 

Question.  When  did  Mr.  Storm  tell  you  that  Mr.  Hough's  proposition 
was  not  acceded  to  ? 

Answer.  Some  time  within  the  last  three  months. 

Question.  Have  you  related  the  substance  of  what  Mr.  Storm  told  you 
recently  to  any  person  ;  and  if  so,  to  whom  ? 

Answer.  I  have  to  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  and  to  no  other  person. 

Question.  Were  you  at  the  store  of  Mr.  McAuley  last  Wednesday  morn- 
ing :  and  if  so,  did  you  see  there  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  collector  of  New 
York  ? 

Answer.  No.  I  was  in  this  city  last  Wednesday  morning. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  Mr.  Edward  Curtis  since  you  were  subpoenaed 
to  appear  before  this  committee  ;  and  if  so,  have  you  held  any  conversa- 
tion with  him  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  him,  but  have  not  spoken  to  him ;  I  saw  him  in  the 
street. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  conversed  with  Mr.  Curtis  upon  the  subject  of 
Mr.  Storm's  contract  ? 
Answer.  No. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Storm  speak  as  if  he  was  disposed  to  accede  to  Mr. 
Hough's  proposition  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  answer  this  question. 

Question.  What  was  it  Mr.  Storm  desired  Mr.  McAuley  to  advise  him 
about  ? 

Answer.  As  I  understood  it,  as  to  whether  Mr.  Hough  was  empower- 
ed to  make  the  contract  or  not. 

Question.  WTere  you  present  at  Mr.  Bleecker's  house,  at  a  conversation 
between  Mr.  Bleecker  and  Mr.  McAuley,  on  the  subject  of  what  had  pass- 
ed between  Mr.  Storm  and  Mr.  Hough,  in  relation  to  the  furniture  con- 
tract ? 

Answer.  I  was. 

Question.  State  what  Mr.  McAuley  told  Mr.  Bleecker  in  that  conver- 
sation. 

Answer.  Mr.  McAuley  mentioned  to  Mr.  Bleecker,  that  Mr.  Storm  was 
applied  to  by  Mr.  Hough  to  furnish  the  custom-house  at  New  York,  and 
he  stated  that  it  was  his  belief,  or  that  it  was  probable,  that  Mr.  Hough  re- 
ceived or  was  to  receive  a  compensation ;  that  Mr.  Storm  would  make 
something,  and  Mr.  Hough  would  make  something,  out  of  the  job. 

Question.  Did  you  hear  from  Mr.  Storm  or  Mr.  McAuley  in  what  man- 
ner it  was  expected  that  Mr.  Hough  would  make  any  thing  out  of  the  job  ? 

Answer.  I  never  heard  Mr.  Storm  say  that  Mr.  Hough  would  make 
any  thing  out  of  it. 

Question.  Did  you  hold  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Storm,  on  the  subject 
of  this  investigation,, about  the  time  you  left  New  York  for  Washington  ? 
and  if  so,  state  what  that  conversation  was. 

Answer.  We  have  had  conversations  as  to  what  would  be  made  out  of 
this  investigation.  Mr.  Storm  said  Mr.  Hough  did  not  receive  any  thing 
from  him;  that  Mr.  McAuley  was  wrong  in  his  conjectures  :  that  Mr. 
Hough  did  make  a  proposition,  but  that  it  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Storm 
"before  the  contract  was  closed.  He  did  not  state,  in  this  conversation,  what. 
the  understanding  with  Mr.  Hough  was. 


78 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Question.  Did  Mr.  Storm  tell  you  at  any  time  how  much  was  due  him 
for  this  work  ? 

Answer.  I  have  understood  from  him  that  there  was  due  him  about 
$8,000. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  understood,  from  Mr.  Storm,  why  the  payment 
-of  this  $8,000  had  been  so  long  deferred  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  from  him  that  the  reason  was,  that  there  was  no 
money  in  the  custom-house  at  New  York.  That  Mr.  Curtis  had  paid  the 
amount  of  the  original  contract,  and  that  so  soon  as  money  could  be  col- 
lected at  the  custom-house  he  would  be  paid.  That  he  had  called  upon 
Mr.  Curtis  for  the  money,  and  that  Mr.  Curtis  had  told  him  that  he  had 
no  money  to  pay  him  with. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  learned,  from  Mr.  Storm  or  any  body  else, 
whether  advances  of  money  were  made  to  him  during  the  progress  of  the 
work  ;  and  if  so,  by  whom  were  they  made  ?  . 

Answer.  I  think  I  understood  from  him  that  Mr.  Grinnell  had  offered 
to  lend  him  some. money,  if  he  should  require  it.  I  know  of  no  advances 
of  money  beiii£  made  to  him. 

SAMUEL  RUCKEL. 

Testimony  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Charles 
JVlcAuley  in  relation  to  the  contract  of  Mr.  Abraham  Storm  for  furniture 
for  the  New  York  custom-house  ?  and  if  so,  state  what  that  conversation 
was,  and  when  it  was  held. 

Answer.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Charles  McAuley  at  my  house, 
on  the  evening  of  the  2d  of  February,  1842,  in  which  he  gave  me  the  fol- 
lowing information,  unasked  by  myself: 

A  lottery  office  keeper,  by  the  name  of  Joseph  Hough,  residing  under 
.the  American  museum,  Broadway,  New  York,  called  on  Abraham  Storm, 
cabinet  maker,  Broadway,  and  asked  him  if  he  would  like  a  $20,000  job, 
on  the  condition  of  paying  him  25  per  cent,  out  of  it ;  and  that,  after  he 
gave  in  his  estimate,  he  could  add  on  to  the  different  articles  enough  to 
make  up  the  bonus.  Storm  called  on  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  and  told  him  of 
-the  proposal.  Grinnell  advised  him  to  take  it.  Storm  then  went  to  Cur- 
tis, the  collector,  with  his  estimate.  Mr.  Curtis  told  him  he  had  heard  of 
him,  and  gave  him  the  work  to  do. 

The  work  is  now  25  per  cent,  higher  than  estimated  for,  in  the  shape  of 
alterations  and  extras. 

Storm  told  McAuley  he  should  clear  six  thousand  dollars,  and  Hough 
would  receive  as  much  more.    I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York, 

Question.  Have  you  held  any  other  conversations  with  Mr.  McAuley 
on  the  subject — how  often,  and  when  the  last  ? 

Answer.  I  have  held  conversations  with  Mr.  McAuley  twice  on  this 
subject  since  the  one  alluded  to  in  my  first  answer.  The  last  was  on  the 
evening  of  the  31st  of  May,  at  his  store  in  Hudson  street,  New  York,  at 
which  time  he  fully  repeated  his  former  declaration  to  me. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Mr.  McAuley,  or  Mr.  Samuel 
iluckel,  relative  to  the  contract  for  furniture  with  William  B.  Shipman  ? 
If  so,  state  what  it  was. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


79 


Answer.  Mr.  Rnckel  has  informed  me  that  Mr.  Shipman  had  been 
promised  the  work  by  the  collector;  and,  after  Storm  had  made  his  ar- 
rangement to  take  the  contract,  the  collector  wished  Storm  to  divide  with 
Shipman  the  work,  which  Storm  declined.  I  had  no  conversation  with 
Mr.  McAnley  on  the  subject. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  McAuley  inform  you  that  Storm  had  consulted  him 
upon  the  propriety  of  making  the  contract? 

Answer.  Mr.  McAuley  informed  me  that  Storm  came  to  his  place  at 
Cornwall,  New  York,  and  stated  to  him  the  proposal  made  by  Hough. 
McAuley  advised  him  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  as  he  did  not  consider 
it  a  fair  transaction,  and  advised  him  to  call  upon  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  and 
ask  his  advice  on  the  subject. 

Question.  Were  there  any  person  or  persons  present  when  you  had  the 
conversation  with  Mr.  McAuley  stated  in  your  first  answer ;  and  if  so,  who 
were  they  ? 

Answer.  My  wife  was  present  at  the  conversation,  and  Samuel  RuckeL 
Question.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have  you  been  en- 
gaged in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  am  custom-house  broker,  and  have  been  engaged  in  that  oc- 
cupation since  last  October. 

Question.  What  was  your  occupation  before  last  October  ? 

Answer.  I  was  employed  in  the  custom-house  at  New  York  as  assistant 
'Cashier,  and  had  been  in  the  custom-house  upwards  of  17  years. 

Question.  Were  you  sworn  as  a  witness  by  the  commission  composed 
of  Messrs.  Poindexter  and  others  ;  and  if  so,  do  you  now  adopt  the  state- 
ment made  before  them  ? 

Answer.  I  was  sworn  before  them,  and  adopt  the  same  statement  now. 

Question.  Were  you  removed  from  office  by  the  present  collector  after 
said  statement  was  made  ;  and  if  so,  h©w  long  after  ? 

Answer.  I  was  removed  after  the  said  statement  was  made.  My  testi- 
mony was  taken  on  10th  June,  and  I  was  removed  on  the  7th  July,  1841. 

Question.  What  reason  was  assigned  by  the  collector  for  your  removal  ? 

Answer.  The  reason  assigned  was,  that  I  was  a  stranger  to  him,  and  he 
preferred  having  his  friends  around  him. 

Question.  Was  a  certificate  of  good  behaviour  given  you  by  the  collect- 
or ;  and  if  so,  what  was  it,  and  where  is  it  ? 

Answer.  A  certificate  was  given  in  the  shape  of  a  letter,  which  I  will 
hand  the  committee,  to  be  imbodied  in  my  answer  : 

Collector's  Office,  July  3,  1841. 

Sir  :  On  the  7th  instant  I  propose  to  place  a  friend  of  mine  in  the  post 
now  filled  by  you  in  the  custom-house.  I  have  to  remark  that  I  have  not 
dispensed  with  your  services  for  any  political  reasons,  nor  because  I  have 
any  occasion  to  doubt  your  integrity. 

I  hold  that,  in  regard  to  the  clerks  around  me  in  this  office,  I  have  a  right 
to  select  my  friends,  and  that  strangers  to  me,  who  were  employed  by  my 
predecessor,  have  no  right  to  complain  if  I  prefer  to  commit  my  interests, 
and  those  of  my  sureties,  to  the  care  of  persons  of  my  own  selection,  and 
who,  from  pre-existing  connexion  with  me,  or  my  friends,  may  be  well 
•  supposed  to  take  a  greater  interest  in  my  behalf.    I  have  made  this  ex- 


80 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


planation  to  you,  that  you  may  see  that  I  part  with  you  in  no  spirit  of  un- 
kindness. 

Wishing  you  prosperity  and  happiness,  I  am  ever  yours,  respectfully, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Mr.  Joseph  R.  Bleecker. 

P.  S.  I  regret  to  learn  that  you  have  been  ill  for  a  few  days  past.  Voui 
pay  will  continue  to  the  7th  instant. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  McAuley,  at  any  time,  said  any  thing  to  you  about 
his  wishing  to  have  the  matter  connected  with  the  furniture  contract,  &.C., 
kept  secret  until  Mr.  Storm  could  get  his  pay  ;  and  if  so,  what  did  lie  say 
in  such  conversation,  and  when  was  it  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  McAuley  has  once  or  twice  expressed  to  me  his  wish  that 
the  matter  should  be  kept  still  until  Mr.  Storm  got  his  money  ;  but  that  lie 
wished  to  see  the  fraud  exposed  as  much  as  I  did  myself.  He  thought,  if  it 
"was  told  before  Storm  got  his  money^it  might  prove  injurious  to  him,  and 
that  it  was  for  his  sake  that  he  wished  it  kept  secret.  He  said  he  did  not 
wish  me  to  say  any  thing  about  it,  for  he  did  not  wish  to  be  compelled  to 
say  any  thing  about  it  himself. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation,  in  the  store  of  Mr.  McAuley.  be- 
fore you  left  the  city  of  New  York  for  Washington,  and  after  you  were 
both  subpoenaed  to  attend  here,  in  regard  to  what  the  foreman  or  Mr.  Storm 
had  said  to  him  ;  and  if  so,  what  was  it,  and  who  was  present? 

Answer.  I  had  a  conversation  with  him  on  the  evening  of  the  31st  of 
May,  at  which  my  wife  was  present  a  part  of  the  time,  and  in  which  Mr. 
McAuley  stated  to  me  that  he  had  seen  the  foreman  of  Storm  that  after- 
noon ;  and  that  the  foreman  told  him  that  Storm  wished  to  see  him  (Mc- 
Auley) before  any  one  else  saw  him  ;  and  that  he  also  told  him  (McAuley) 
that  the  committee  would  get  nothing  out  of  Storm. 

Question.  Have  you,  at  any  time,  heard  Mr.  McAuley  say  any  thing — 
and  if  so,  what — in  regard  to  his  belief  of  Storm's  honesty,  but  that  this 
furniture  job  had  tempted  him  beyond  his  resistance  ? 

Answer.  In  the  course  of  the  conversation,  to  which  I  have  alluded  on 
the  31st  of  May,  he  remarked  that  he  thought  Storm  meant  to  be  honest, 
but  that  this  job  was  too  great  a  temptation  for  him. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  told  McAuley  that  it  was  your  impression  that 
Storm  would  deny  every  thing  about  this  furniture  contract  that  passed  be- 
tween him  and  Hough;  and  if  so,  what  was  his  reply  ? 

Answer.  I  told  him  that  I  thought  Mr.  Storm  had  received  his  lesson, 
and  that  he  would  deny  every  thing  about  it ;  and  he  remarked  that  he 
could  not  do  it. 

JOSEPH  R.  BLEECKER. 


June  1,  1842. 

Testimony  of  Mrs.  Ann  M.  Bleecker,  wife  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecker. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  a  conversation  between  your  husband  and 
Mr.  Charles  McAuley,  at  your  house,  on  the  evening  of  the  2d  of  February. 


Sep.  No.  1065. 


81 


1842,  on  the  subject  of  a  contract  o£  Mr.  Abraham  Storm,  for  furniture  for 
the  New  York  custom-house  ?  and  if  so,  state  what  said  conversation  was. 

Answer.  I  can't  say  what  evening  of  the  month  it  was,  but  I  recollect 
the  conversation.  As  near  as  I  recollect,  Mr.  McAuley  said  that  Mr.  Storm 
had  told  him  that  a  person  by  the  name  of  Hough,  who  had  an  office  under 
the  American  museum,  had  called  on  him,  (Storm,)  and  asked  if  he  would 
like  to  have  a  job  of  work  ;  and  he  (Storm)  was  either  to  divide  the  profits 
with  Hough,  or  was  to  allow  him  $6,000.  I  don't  recollect  which  it  was. 
I  do,  however,  recollect  that  $6,000  was  named.  It  was  understood  that 
Storm  was  to  lose  nothing  himself,  but  was  to  add  on  to  the  price  of  his 
work,  so  as  to  be  able  to  pay  Hough. 

Question.  Was  any  thing  said  in  relation  to  Storm's  calling  on  Moses 
H.  Grinnell,  and  as  to  what  Grinneli  advised  him  in  regard  to  the  job  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  McAuley  said  that  he  advised  Mr.  Storm  to  call  ou  Mr. 
Grinnell  for  his  advice,  and  I  have  since  heard  him  say  the  same  thing. 

Question.  Have  you  heard  Mr.  McAuley,  at  any  other  time  since  this 
conversation,  repeat  the  same  facts;  and  if  so,  when  and  where  ? 

Answer.  I  heard  him  repeat  the  same  things  at  his  store  in  New  York, 
on  the  evening  before  we  left  home,  in  presence  of  my  husband,  which  was 
about  the  1st  of  the  present  month. 

Question.  Was  any  thing  said  in  this  last  conversation,  between  your 
husband  and  McAulev,  about  the  probability  of  Storm's  denying  all  about 
it? 

Answer.  I  recollect  of  having  heard  somebody  say  that  the  question  was 
asked  Mr.  McAuley,  whether  Storm  would  deny  every  thing,  but  t 
remember  whether  1  heard  it  asked  or  not.    The  answer  of  Mr.  McAuley, 
which  I  either  heard  or  understood  was  given,  was,  that  Storm  could  not 
deny  it. 

Question.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  McAuley  say  any  thing  about  Mr.  Storm's 
foreman  calling  on  him. 

Answer.  On  the  evening  that  I  have  spoken  of,  when  I  was  at  Mr. 
McAuley's  store,  I  heard  him  say  that  Mr.  Storm's  foreman  had  called  on 
him,  and  told  him  that  Mr.  Storm  wanted  to  see  him  (McAuley)  before 
any  body  else  saw  him  ;  and  that  he  (the  foreman)  told  McAuley  that  the 
committee  would  get  nothing  out  of  Storm ;  and  I  have  the  impression  on 
my  mind,  but  am  not  very  positive  about  it,  that  Mr.  McAuley  said  that 
Storm  had  written  him  a  letter  on  the  same  subject. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  any  conversation  between  Mr.  McAuley 
and  your  husband,  or  between  McAuley  and  Mr.  Ruckel,  previous  to  the 
month  of  February,  1S42,  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Storm's  contract  ? 

Answer.  I  can't  recollect  distinctly  in  regard  to  the  time,  I  have  heard 
so  much  on  the  subject.  It  has  been  a  great  deal  talked  of,  and  a  good 
deal  at  our  table,  between  my  brother  (Mr.  Ruckel)  and  ourselves.  I 
knew,  before  the  time  spoken  of,  that  Mr.  Storm  had  obtained  the  contract 
for  the  furniture,  but  I  had  not  before  known  any  thing  of  Mr.  Hough. 

ANN  MATILDA  BLEECKER. 


6 


82 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


June  8,  1842. 

Testimony  of  John  Frazee,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  the  committee.  Will  you  state  the  circumstances,  as  near 
as  you  can  now  detail  them,  which  induced  a  change  in  the  estimate  you 
made  for  finishing  the  New  York  custom-house,  from  June  to  December, 
1841. 

Answer.  The  first  prominent  article  of  additional  expense  was  that  of 
introducing  the  iron  desk  stands.  I  had  seen  some  stands,  in  the  Bank  of 
America,  made  of  iron,  which  suggested  to  myself  and  Mr.  Lord,  (the 
naval  officer,)  together,  the  propriety  of  having  something  of  that  kind  to 
support  the  desks.  I  then  made  a  sketch  in  pencil,  and  exhibited  it  to  Mr. 
Lord  and  some  of  the  other  officers,  and  I  don't  know  but  to  Mr.  Curtis. 
I  had  commenced  in  the  naval  office  first,  and  that  will  account  for  my 
showing  the  sketch  to  and  consulting  with  Mr.  Lord.  All  persons  to  whom 
I  showed  this  sketch  were  delighted  with  and  highly  approved  of  it.  I 
made  the  drawings  then  of  full  size,  and  ordered  Mr.  Tibbetts  to  go  on 
with  the  work,  make  patterns,  and  commence  castings.  Mr.  Tibbetts  at 
that  time  was  engaged  on  the  work  of  the  custom-house  generally ;  and 
1  supposed  he  was  the  only  person  to  whom  I  should  apply  to  do  the 
work. 

Question.  Who  directed  the  change  in  the  plan  of  the  furniture  supplied 
to  the  custom-house  by  Mr.  Storm? 

Answer.  The  changes  were  made  by  myself,  after  consulting  with  the 
officers  as  to  what  they  wanted.  We  commenced  in  the  naval  and  sur- 
veyor's offices  first.  I  got  up  the  furniture  pretty  much  according  to  their 
ideas,  as  to  the  number  of  desks,  cases,  &c. ;  the  style  of  the  work  was  my 
own.  When  we  came  into  the  collector's  department,  (the  great  room,)  we 
found  that  the  plan  upon  which  Mr.  Horspool  made  his  estimate  would 
not  do.  It  did  not  give  sufficient  room  for  the  number  of  desks  and  cases 
required  to  do  business.  In  consultation  with  the  deputy  collectors, 
whom  Mr.  Curtis  sent  in  to  make  the  arrangements,  it  was  found  necessary 
to  adopt  the  present  plan.  Then  I  ordered  the  furniture  to  be  made  ac- 
cording to  the  plan. 

Question.  At  what  time  did  you  make  the  changes  in  the  furniture  con- 
tract with  Storm  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  the  time.  It  was  late  in  the  summer.  I 
think  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  summer  that  the  greatest  changes  were 
made.  I  do  not  know  but  what  the  alterations  were  made  in  the  great 
room  as  early  as  the  1st  of  August. 

Question.  Were  those  changes  made  by  you  with  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  the  collector ;  or  were  they  made  by  you 
without  his  advice,  knowledge,  or  consent? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis  was  consulted  with  occasionally ;  he  came  in  sev- 
eral times.  He  approved  of  the  plan  which  the  deputies  and  myself  had 
adopted,  changing  the  original  plan.  He  said  I  had  my  instructions  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  interfere  with  them. 

Question.  Were  the  prices  of  said  furniture,  by  such  changes,  made 
lower,  or  we're  they  in  every  instance  made  higher  than  the  original  con- 
tract price  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  keep  the  parallel  of  prices  in  my 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


83 


mind,  because  the  plan  was  altogether  different.  The  modification  en- 
larged the  plan,  and  the  work  of  the  desks  was  more  expensive  than  origi- 
nally contemplated,  not  from  any  design,  but  from  necessity.  The  desks, 
in  the  first  instance,  were  not,  I  think,  to  have  been  covered  with  cloth. 
Subsequently,  we  concluded  to  cover  them  with  cloth,  and  also  to  add  on 
the  brass  railing  to  the  tops.  Also,  the  glass  fronts  were  added  to  the  cases, 
in  place  of  close  panellings  of  wood. 

Question.  Was  the  change  of  your  plan  communicated  to  the  collector 
when  first  made  ;  and  if  so,  was  it  then  approved  by  him  ? 

Answer.  He  always  approved  of  all  the  changes  and  modifications  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  work  that  were  made,  I  think. 

Question.  Was  there  any  material  alteration  in  the  construction  of  the 
furniture  made  by  you,  without  the  knowledge  or  approbation  of  Mr.  Ed- 
ward Curtis,  the  collector ;  and  if  so,  what  alteration  was  so  made,  and 
when  was  it  made  ? 

Answer.  The  alterations  were  for  the  most  part  suggested  in  the  progress 
of  the  work.  I  consulted  with  the  clerks  of  each  department  as  to  the 
number  of  holes  and  book  compartments  that  were  to  be  made — things 
which  neither  the  collector  nor  myself  knew  any  thing  about.  We  made  a 
great  many  articles  of  furniture  which  were  not  contemplated  in  the  origi- 
nal estimate.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Curtis  was  consulted  in  all 
those  things,  but  I  think  not ;  indeed,  I  am  pretty  certain  he  was  not.  He 
was  always  very  busy,  and  I  did  not  wish  to  trouble  him  with  every  little 
thing.  He  always  seemed  to  be  satisfied  with  every  thing  that  I  did.  He 
ordered  one  change  of  a  principal  character,  which  was,  not  to  put  so  ex- 
pensive glass  into  the  cases  of  the  second  and  third  stories  as  had  been  put 
into  the  first,  which  we  complied  with.  The  glass,  he  thought,  was  more 
expensive  than  ought  to  be  put  into  those  stories.  I  thought  differently, 
and  think  so  still. 

Question.  Was  any  objection  made  to  you  by  the  collector,  after  he  un- 
derstood your  changes  in  the  furniture  ;  or  did  he  approve  what  you  had 
done,  after  he  was  so  informed? 

Answer.  He  made  no  objections  to  any  alterations  in  the  furniture,  that 
I  know  of.  Mr.  Storm,  towards  the  latter  end  of  the  furnishing,  stated  to 
me  that  Mr.  Curtis  told  him  he  must  not  make  any  more  furniture  without 
his  orders,  as  he  had  already  exceeded  his  contract.  The  furniture  was 
pretty  much  all  made  or  commenced  at  that  time;  this  was  in  the  last 
winter.  I  went  to  Mr.  Curtis  afterwards,  and  asked  him  what  we  must 
do ;  the  officers  said  they  wanted  such  and  such  pieces  of  furniture.  He 
said,  never  mind,  they  must  do  without  them. 

Question.  Was  the  letter  marked  K,  (and  now  exhibited,)  purporting  to 
be  a  copy  of  a  letter  written  by  Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  late  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  to  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  and  dated  March  3,  1841,  written 
by  you ;  and  if  so,  when,  where,  and  for  what  purpose  was  it  written  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  given  any  other  copy  of  the  letter 
than  the  one  I  wrote  here  from  memory.  I  believe  this  is  the  one.  I  think 
Mr.  Curtis  took  a  copy  from  the  copy  that  I  had  of  the  original  letter  in 
New  York.  The  copy  1  had  from  Mr.  Woodbury,  I  left  in  New  York. 
I  thought  I  knew  the  letter  well  enough  to  copy  it  from  memory.  I  had 
read  it  a  good  many  times — not  for  the  purpose  of  remembering  it.  I 
showed  it  to  people  a  good  many  times,  who  called  in  the  building  com- 
plaining of  Mr.  Curtis.    They  complained  that  he  was  making  the  furni- 


84  Rep.  No.  1065. 


ture  extravagant.  I  told  them  the  style  of  the  work  was  my  own,  and  I 
was  responsible  for  it,  and  not  Mr.  Curtis.  I  took  my  letter  frequently 
from  the  desk,  to  show  that  I  had  my  authority  not  from  Mr.  Curtis,  but 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  I  wrote  the  letter,  some  time  after  I 
came  here  in  April,  because  I  heard  from  somebody  that  my  authority  was 
questioned.  I  think  the  letter  was  written  for  the  committee  of  the  Senate, 
or  of  the  House,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  my  authority  to  go  on  and 
accomplish  the  work  as  it  had  already  been  done. 

Question.  Was  letter  marked  Z  (and  now  shown  you)  addressed  to  the 
Hon.  Millard  Fillmore,  and  dated  May  12,  1S42,  written  by  you? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  Had  you  been  informed  by  either  of  the  committees,  or  any 
one  else,  before  you  wrote  letter  Z,  that  your  authority  was  denied  ? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  I  had  heard  it  from  several  persons. 

Question.  Were  you  advised  by  any  one  that  it  would  be  necessary  for 
you  to  produce  any  authority  of  this  description. 

Answer.  Mr.  Evans  told  me  that  I  had  better  hand  in  my  papers,  or 
make  any  communication  I  might  think  proper. 

Question.  Did  you  inform  the  person  to  whom  you  delivered  the  letter 
that  you  had  copied  it  from  memory,  or  did  you  inform  any  other  person 
of  that  fact  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  I  did  not. 

Question.  Was  it  suggested  by  any  member  of  either  of  the  committees 
that  there  would  be  a  dilFiculty  in  passing  the  accounts,  without  an  exhibi- 
tion of  the  authority  for  your  action. 

Answer.  I  think,  in  a  conversation  I  had  with  Mr.  Wright,  that  lie  told 
me  that  our  accounts  were  going  to  be  contested ;  that  we  had  been 
acting  without  authority.  I  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Evans  said  any  thing 
of  the  kind,  but  Mr.  McKeon  did;  about  that  time  I  was  advised  to  see 
Mr.  Promt. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know,  at  the  time  you  wrote  the  copy,  that  the 
original  was  on  file  in  the  Treasury  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  thought  about  it  at  all.  If  I  had  known 
what  I  know  now,  I  should  have  procured  a  copy  from  the  Department. 

Question.  Did  you  hear  the  first  discussion  which  arose  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  the  subject  of  the  discrepancy  between  your  copy  and 
the  original  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Poindexter;  and 
if  so,  how  long  after  that  was  it  before  you  wrote  your  letter  to  Mr. 
Fillmore  ? 

Answer.  I  was  in  the  gallery  at  the  time  the  discussion  was  going  on 
I  remember  some  remarks,  which  I  did  not  hear  distinctly,  made  by  Mr. 
Fillmore,  as  to  the  discrepancy  between  the  letter  he  had  and  the  letter 
given  in  Mr.  Poindexter's  report.  I  did  not  pay  any  great  attention  to  it. 
I  could  not  hear  every  word  distinctly.  It  did  not  strike  me  at  the  time 
that  any  thing  that  occurred  in  debate  was  material.  The  next  morning  I 
was  in  the  gallery  after  the  House  opened,  and  was  sent  for  by  Mr. 
McKeon.  I  think  it  was  the  next  morning  I  called  down  below,  in  the 
lobby,  and  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  McKeon  were  there.  They  had  my 
letter,  and  the  copy  they  had  got  from  the  Department.  Mr.  McKeon 
asked  me  who  made  the  copy.  I  told  him  that  I  made  it  myself.  He  then 
asked  me  what  I  took  it  from.  1  told  him  that  I  took  it  from  memory. 
Mr.  Roosevelt  expressed  some  surprise  that  I  could  copy  a  letter  from 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


85 


memory,  and  copy  it  so  near.  I  toid  him  I  thought  I  knew  every  word 
of  the  original  letter,  or  nearly  so;  and,  as  evidence  of  my  knowledge 
of  the  letter,  I  commenced  repeating  the  letter  there  while  he  held  the  let- 
ter in  his  hand ;  and  I  thought  that  they  were  satisfied  that  1  could  repeat 
the  letter  correctly,  or  nearly  so.  We  had  some  discussion  together.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  and  Mr.  McKeon  thought  I  had  better  write  a  note  of  explana- 
tion to  Mr.  Fillmore,  or  there  might  be  some  trouble  about  it.  Mr.  Fill- 
more was  then  upon  the  floor,  speaking,  and  they  said  I  must  write  it 
quick,  or  it  would  be  too  late.  I  then  wrote  the  letter,  and  handed  it  in  to 
Mr.  Fillmore.    I  wrote  the  letter  in  the  Sergeant-at-arms'  room. 

Question.  Why  did  you  interline  the  word  "having"  in  the  first  line  of 
your  copy? 

Answer.  Because  I  considered  it  would  not  read  well.  I  remember- 
ed the  word  "having." 

Question.  Had  you  conversed  with  any  body,  within  a  few  days  before 
you  copied  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter,  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  origin- 
al; and  if  so,  was  it  suggested  to  you  that  it  contained  no  authority  upon 
the  subject  of  bronzing  the  iron  work  in  the  custom-house,  or  that  it  related 
to  nothing  more  than  the  arrangement  of  the  furniture? 

Answer.  I  had  a  good  deal  of  conversation,  and  I  don't  know  but  that 
something  was  said  by  Mr.  Prornt  on  the  subject  of  bronzing.  I  think  I 
told  him  that  the  word  "  bronzing"  was  in  the  letter,  and  he  denied  it. 
The  reason  I  thought  so  was,  that  it  had  been  used  in  the  report  of  the 
deputy  naval  officer  and  surveyor.  Mr.  Proffit  told  me  that  we  had  been 
working  without  authority,  and  ought  not  to  be  paid. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  D wight  and  yourself  hold  a  conversation  in  the 
Treasury  building,  before  you  wrote  your  copy,  in  which  he  informed  you 
that  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury  only  applied  to  the  arrangement  of  the 
furniture,  and  that  it  did  not  authorize  the  bronzing  of  the  iron  work? 

Answer.  No,  I  think  not.  I  think  the  conversation  I  ha'd  with  Mr. 
Dwight  was  after  that  time.  I  may  be  mistaken,  even  in  that.  Mr. 
Dwight  and  I  had  a  conversation  upon  the  general  subject.  I  told  Mr. 
Dwight  that  I  thought  it  was  a  pity  that  we  mechanics  should  be  abused, 
owing  to  the  disputes  between  Mr.  Curtis  and  others.  I  called  to  see  Mr. 
Forward  at  the  Treasury,  to  see  if  I  could  obtain  papers  which  I  had  sent 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  which  his  son  John  told  me 
were  in  the  Treasury  Department.  It  was  at  that  time  that  I  conversed 
with  Mr.  Dwight — some  time  in  May  last. 

Question.  Were  you  in  this  city  while  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropria- 
tion bill  was  pending  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  before  it  had 
been  sent  to  the  Senate  ;  and  if  so,  did  you  make  an  effort  to  have  the  bill 
amended  in  the  House,  so  as  to  cover  the  balance  due  for  the  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  certain  as  to  the  time.  I  arrived  in  the  city  on  the 
ISth  or  19th  of  April;  certainly  on  the  19th.  I  think  the  appropriation 
bill  was  taken  out  of  committee  about  that  time.  I  won't  be  certain.  I 
think  I  did  not  get  any  amendment  offered  to  the  bill.  I  think  Mr.  Tib- 
betts,  when  I  got  here,  told  me  I  had  arrived  too  late.  I  was  then  told  by 
Mr.  McKeon  that  it  could  be  brought  forward  in  the  Senate. 

Question.  To  what  did  the  dispute  between  Mr.  Bowne  and  yourself 
relate,  which  caused  your  dismissal  from  the  office  of  architect  ? 

Answer.  We  had  no  great  dispute  about  it.    Mr.  Bowne  says,  in  his 


86 


Rep.  TSTo.  1065. 


letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  that  he  dismissed  the  architect  he- 
cause  he  thought  the  services  of  the  architect  were  no  longer  needed.  In 
the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Bowne,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  Mr.  Hoyt,  Mr.  Bowne  stated  that  the  architect  wished  to  bronze  the 
iron  work,  but  that  he  did  not  accede  to  it ;  he  had  directed  it  to  be  paint- 
ed white,  as  he  thought  t he  bronzing  would  make  the  building  too  dark. 
I  thought  he  would  not  have  dismissed  me  so  soon,  had  he  not  have 
thought  that  I  was  going  on  to  bronze  the  iron  work. 

Question.  Was  it  understood  by  yourself  and  the  cellector,  at  the  time 
you  received  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter  of  3d  March,  1S41,  that  the  Secre- 
tary intended  by  it  to  endorse  the  recommendation  in  the  report  of  the 
deputy  naval  oflicer  and  surveyor,  and  no  more  ? 

Answer.  My  view  of  it  was,  that  the  work  suggested  and  recommend- 
ed by  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor  was  intended,  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  should  be  carried  into  effect,  because,  he  says,  in  accordance 
with  their  recommendation,  I  deem  it  proper,  &c.  I  do  not  think  he  in- 
tended to  comply  entirely  with  their  recommendation  in  relation  to  my 
being  paid  for  the  interval  of  time  between  the  time  of  my  being  dismiss- 
ed and  the  3d  of  March.  I  think  he  ought  to  have  done  it,  from  the  rea- 
sons set  forth  in  the  naval  officer's  report. 

Question.  Where  did  you  derive  authority  from,  to  make  the  iron  desk 
frames  ? 

Answer.  From  the  force  and  import  of  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter.  Fur- 
thermore, the  collector,  the  commissioner,  and  the  other  officers  of  the 
customs,  approved  of  it. 

Question.  If  the  import  of  Mr.  Woodbury's  letter  embraced  the  iron 
desk  frames,  as  a  portion  ofthe  arrangement  of  the  furniture  mentioned 
in  his  letter  of  3d  March,  why  did  you  subsequently  estimate  it  as  "  be- 
longing to  the  building."  under  the  contract  with  Mr.  Tibbetts? 

Answer.  *I  did  not  see  what  difference  that  could  make  in  Mr.  Tibbetts's 
contract.  My  conclusion  was,  that  Mr.  Tibbetts  was  to  do  all  the  iron 
work  about  the  building.  I  had  no  motive  in  giving  Mr.  Tibbetts  that 
work,  more  than  I  had  in  giving  him  any  other  work.  He  was  at  work  in 
the  building  with  his  hands,  as  I  have  already  stated. 

Question.  Did  you  consult  the  collector  upon  the  subject  of  making  the 
desk  frames  of  iron,  before  you  ordered  them  to  be  made ;  and  if  so,  did 
he  sanction  and  authorize  it  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  showed  him  the  design  long  before  they  were  order- 
ed to  be  made.  I  know  he  approved  of  them,  as  well  as  the  other  officers. 
I  was  sensible,  at  the  time,  that  they  would  cost  more  than  wooden  frames. 
I  did  not  wish  to  do  any  thing  that  was  not  approved  of  by  the  officers  of 
the  custom-house. 

Question.  Who  were  the  persons  who  complained  of  the  extravagance 
of  Mr.  Curtis  ? 

Answer.  A  number  of  people  during  the  year — I  do  not  remember  par- 
ticular individuals  ;  a  number  of  persons,  in  and  out,  said  he  was  furnish- 
ing the  building  in  an  extravagant  style. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Curtis  show  you  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  dated  7th  April,  herewith  shown  to  you,  marked  Q,  before  he 
sent  it  to  Mr.  WToodbury  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  never  saw  that  letter  before ;  I  don't  remember  that  Mr. 
Curtis  ever  showed  me  any  letters  he  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


87 


Mr.  Curtis  and  T  had  several  consultations  about  furnishing  the  building  at 
that  time,  and  it  strikes  me  that  he  showed  me  a  letter  from  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  respecting  the  furnishing  of  the  building. 

Question.  Was  letter  marked  CC  received  by  you  from  Mr.  Talman;  and 
jf  so,  were  the  words  commissioner  New  York  custom-house.  New  York/' 
attached  to  his  name  ? 

Answer.  The  letter  was  received,  and  I  wrote  the  words  merely  to  de- 
signate his  office.  It  was  a  private  letter  to  me,  and  I  only  put  the  words 
to  show  who  the  person  was. 

Question.  Do  you  claim  that  any  amount  is  now  due  you  for  services  as 
architect  on  the  custom-house  ;  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  the  amount  on  the  bill,  of  $3,429,  for 
my  services  for  381  days,  at  $9  per  day,  in  addition  to  my  expenses  in 
Travelling  to  Washington  in  April  and  May,  and  which  I  think  ought  to  be 
paid,  as  the  commissioners  always  paid  me  my  expenses  to  Washington  to 
ask  appropriations  for  the  building. 

Question.  Did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Curtis  that  your  services  would  be  ren- 
dered without  compensation  after  the  1st  of  May,  1841,  until  the  comple- 
tion of  the  building  and  the  fitting  up  of  the  furniture  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  a  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the 
building,  stated  to  me  that  it  was  the  wish  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasu- 
ry that  he  should  curtail  the  expenses  as  much  as  he  could  in  the  revenue 
department.  He  alluded  to  other  expenses,  and  asked  me  what  I  received 
a  day.  I  told  him  my  pay  was  $9  a  day,  authorized  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  He  then  asked  me  if  I  could  not  render  my  services  for  a 
jess  amount  during  the  further  progress  of  the  building.  I  told  him  I  did 
not  think  I  could,  as  my  family  was  large,  and  the  payment  as  small  as 
what  I  thouglHl  ought  to  take.  I  then  added,  that  if  the  Government  would 
pay  me  for  the  interval  of  time  that  I  had  just  lost — about  three  months — 
I  would  render  my  services  from  after  the  1st  of  May,  until  the  building 
was  completed,  provided  that  the  time  did  not  extend  beyond  the  1st  of 
July  or  the  1st  of  August.  Mr.  Curtis  expressed  his  opinion  that  I  would 
get  my  back  pay,  and  said  that  if  there  was  any  thing  that  he  could  do  to 
aid  me  in  getting  the  back  pay,  he  would  do  it.  He  said  that  he  was  satis- 
fied that,  in  justice,  I  ought  to  have  it.  We  conversed  together  as  to  the 
probable  time  it  would  take  to  get  into  the  building.  He  said  he  thought 
he  ought  to  get  in  in  July,  or  by  the  1st  of  August.  I  told  him  that  would 
depend  upon  the  number  of  cabinet  makers  employed  upon  the  furniture 
and  other  work  to  do.  I  thought  if  I  gave  the  Government  a  couple  or 
three  months  of  my  services,  it  was  enough.  This  was  very  soon  after  Mr. 
Curtis  came  into  office. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  consulted  as  to  covering  the 
desks  with  cloth,  and  adding  the  brass  railings  at  the  top ;  and  if  so,  did  he 
approve  or  disapprove  of  the  change  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  consulted  about  them  particularly. 
He  was  not  consulted  about  it  until  after  the  naval  office  was  thus  fur- 
nished. 

Question.  Was  the  collector  consulted  as  to  changing  the  wood  panel 
doors  to  glass  fronts ;  and  if  so,  did  he  approve  or  disapprove  of  such 
change  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  was  not  consulted  at  the  time.  I  don't  remember 
hearing  him  say  any  thing  about  the  glass  fronts  until  he  ordered  a  cheaper 


88 


Eep.  No.  1065. 


kind  of  glass  to  be  got  for  the  upper  stories.  He  then  stated  that  the  glass 
was  a  greater  item  of  expense  than  he  anticipated.  He  thought  a  cheaper 
kind  ol  glass  would  answer  for  the  upper  stories. 

Question.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  issuing  certificates  to  the  workmen 
on  the  custom-house  ;  and  if  so,  can  you  state  to  whom  you  have  issued 
them  ? 

Answer.  I  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  so  during  the  past  year.  I  issued 
certificates  to  the  following  individuals,  which,  as  I  understood,  were  often 
sold  by  them  at  a  very  heavy  discount. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  the  bill  of  John  Hodgkin,  for  bronzing, 
and  do  you  know  that  all  the  items  therein  have  been  furnished  to  the 
custom-house ;  and  if  so,  do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  charges  for 
them,  as  well  as  for  the  labor,  are  in  accordance  with  the  market  value  of 
such  articles  and  labor  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  all  the  items  therein  contained  have  been  furnished, 
but  had  to  depend  upon  the  integrity  of  Mr.  Hodgkin  and  his  foreman  a 
good  deal,  though  I  was  very  careful  with  them,  requiring  the  separa.e 
articles  to  be  kept  distinct,  and  all  of  them  to  be  purchased  at.  the  lowest 
possible  rate.  I  am  satisfied,  from  the  inquiries  I  made  at  several  places, 
that  the  charges  are  in  accordance  with  the  market  value  of  such  articles 
and  labor  in  New  York. 

Question.  Why  is  the  bill  of  Mr.  Hodgkin  so  much  increased  beyond 
the  $4,350  of  his  original  proposition  ? 

Answer.  The  contract  relates  to  the  bronzing  of  the  iron  named  in  the 
proposals.  The  increase  is  occasioned  by  the  painting  and  bronzing  of 
the  fly-doors,  vestibules,  desk  stands,  &c,  which  at  that  time  could  not  be 
calculated,  and  the  bronzing  of  which  had  not  been  contemplated.  Much 
of  these  were  miscellaneous,  and  could  not  be  calculated. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  the  other  bills  handed  by  you  to  the 
committee;  and  if  so,  are  they  correct?  Was  the  labor  therein  charged 
performed,  and  the  materials  furnished,  and  are  the  prices  charged  rea- 
sonable ? 

Answer.  I  have  examined  them,  and  think  that  they  are  reasonable  ;  I 
believe  them  to  be  correct,  and  know  that  the  work  was  most  faithfully 
performed. 

Question.  Was  there  an  account  kept  of  the  daily  labor  of  the  stone- 
cutters, masons,  carpenters,  and  other  laborers,  ;  and  if  so,  how  was  it 
kept,  and  have  you  compared  the  bill  now  rendered  with  it  ? 

Answer.  There  was  such  an  account  kept  by  the  master  workman,  which 
was  regularly  transferred  to  a  memorandum  book  kept  by  me,  (and  which  I 
now  exhibit  to  the  committee.)  I  have  compared  the  bill  now  rendered 
with  my  book,  and  find  it  correct.  The  prices  charged  in  the  bills  of  the 
stonecutters,  masons,  &c,  were  the  prices  agreed  to  be  paid  them  by  me, 
which  were  according  to  the  New  York  prices ;  perhaps  sometimes  a  little 
higher,  in  consequence  of  having  to  pay  higher  wages  for  the  best  work- 
men. 

Question.  In  directing  the  items  of  the  bill  of  Mr.  Hodgkin,  which  suc- 
ceed the  charge  of  $4,350  under  the  contract  with  him,  did  you  permit  the 
correctness  of  the  charges  to  depend  upon  his  discretion  and  judgment,  both 
as  to  quantity  and  price,  after  you  had  directed  them,  or  did  you  require 
an  estimate  of  their  quantity  and  value  before  they  were  ordered  ? 

Answer.  I  required  no  estimate;  but  had  to  depend  very  much  upon  the 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


I  *4 

89 


honesty  of  Mr.  Hodgkin,  as  it  was  impossible  to  anticipate  ail  the  items, 
believing  him  to  be  an  honest  and  correct  man. 

Question.  Can  you  state  whether  your  conversation,  to  which  you  have 
already  alluded,  with  Mr.  Proffit,  was  before  or  after  your  conversation 
with  Mr.  Dwight  at  the  Treasury  Department? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  before ;  I  had  a  conversation  in  the  rotundo 
with  Mr.  Dwight  when  I  first  came  to  Washington.  I  had  another  with 
him  in  the  Treasury  building,  which.  I  think,  was  after  the  debating  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  about  the  appropriation. 

JOHN  FRAZEE. 


Statement  of  the  amounts  of  certificates  given  to  certain  icorkmen  em- 
ployed on  the  new  cnstom-house,  New  York,  since  March  3,  1841,  as 
certified  by  the  superintendent. 


To  Jas.  Matthews  : 


Manly : 
Gallagher 


To  — 
To  — 

To  William  Murray  : 


To  William  Kairns  : 
To  George  Wilson  : 


To  H.  Bruhre  : 

To  ■ —  Thornall: 

To  Cornelius  Bedell  : 


To  Charles  Scott : 


October  9,  1S41 
February  5,  1842 
May  21,  1842  - 

December  IS,  1S41 
December  18,  1S41 
December  IS,  1841 
March  19,  1842 

December  18,  1S41 
December  24,  1S41 
May  21,  1S42 

December  31,  1S41 
December  31,  1841 
December  31,  1S41 
January  22,  1S42 
March'?,  1842  - 

January  22,  1842 
March  7,  1842  - 
March  26,  1842 


To  Benjamin  Garthwait:  December  31,  1841 

January  29,  1842 
February  5, 1842 


To 


Brooks 


To  William  Franklin 


To  George  Anson  : 
To  J.  De  Clew  : 
'To  Thomson 


December  31,  1S41 
February  12,  1842 
March  19,  1842 

February  26,  1842 
February  26,  1S42 
January  15,  1842 
March  7,  1842  - 


$117 

00 

133 

13 

102 

38 

72 

28 

44 

16 

50 

00 

66 

63 

150 

00 

37 

13 

50 

00 

SI 

38 

50 

00 

31 

33 

35 

00 

25 

00 

25 

00 

25 

00 

34 

63 

50 

00 

50 

00 

$352  51 
75  66 
59  06 


116  44 
51  84 


116  63 
30  00 
164  00 


237  13 


162  71 


85  00 
25  00 


59  63 
560  50 
50  00 


90 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


$50  00 

  $150  00 

202  50 
50  00 
50  00 
40  00 

  342  50 

113  63 
302  00 
54  00 
33  75 

29  50 
25  50 
  55  00 

The  above  are  from  my  memorandum  account  book,  and  are,  I  believe, 
correct ;  but  I  think  I  may  have  given  out  some  two  or  three  certificates 
which  I  did  not  take  account  of.  One,  at  least,  I  remember  to  have 
given  to  Michael  Kennedy,  for  about  $250,  less  some  few  dollars.  Fur- 
ther I  would  not  state  from  memory. 

JOHN  FRAZEE,  Superintendent,  $c. 

Washington,  June  9,  1842. 


June  10,  1842. 

Jolm  Frazee  examined. 

Mr.  Frazee,  on  this  morning,  desires  to  state,  that  from  a  conversation 
with  a  friend  in  relation  to  his  visit  to  the  Treasury  Department,  which 
conversation  refreshes  his  memory,  that  his  conversation  with  Mr.  Dwight, 
at  the  Treasury  building,  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  his  testimony, 
was  before  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  which  allusion 
has  also  been  made. 

Testimony  of  Hon.  George  H.  Proffit,  being  sworn. 

Question.  Did  you  hold  a  conversation  with  John  Frazee,  architect  of 
the  New  York  custom-house,  in  this  city,  since  the  attempt  was  made  to 
obtain  an  appropriation  to  pay  the  balance  pretended  to  be  due  for  work, 
&c,  on  said  custom-house  ;  and  if  so,  when  was  said  conversation  ?  Did 
you  converse  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the  authority  of  the  custom-house 
officers  to  make  a  contract  for  furnititure  ?  Did  you  inform  him  of  the 
particular  phraseology  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury  of  3d  March,  1841, 
in  relation  to  the  bronzing  of  the  iron  work  of  the  custom-house  ?  And 
if  you  did  so  inform  him,  was  it  before  or  after  the  debate  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  that  subject,  pending  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropri- 
ation bill  ? 

Answer.  During  the  time  the  amendment,  appropriating  $2S,  for 

the  New  York  custom-house,  was  pending  in  the  Senate,  and  before  it  had 
been  proposed  or  debated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Mr.  Frazee, 


March  19,  1842 


To  J.  W.  Stinman  : 


To  

To  Benjamin  Cole 

To  Gray  : 

To  Dugan  : 

To  J.  Vandewater  or 
Vandevoort 


January  S,  1842 
March  7,  1S42  ■ 
April  9,  1842 
April  9,  1842 


Gillespie  :       March  7,  1842 


March  7,  1S42 
March  7,  1842 
March  2G,  1842 
April  30,  1842 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


91 


Mr.  Tibbetts,  and  another  person,  whose  name  I  do  not  recollect,  called 
upon  me  at  my  room.    Mr.  Tibbetts  and  Mr.  Frazee  informed  me  that 
they  wished  to  explain  to  me  the  nature  of  the  appropriation,  its  propriety, 
and  its  justice.    I  had,  previously,  no  acquaintance  with  these  gentlemen. 
They  entered  into  many  explanations  relative  to  their  claims  against  the 
Government.    I  told  them  that  I  had  no  disposition  to  delay  any  payment 
of  money  justly  due  them,  but  informed  them  that  I  was  determined  to  pre- 
vent any  expenditure  of  public  money  without  authority  of  law.    I  told 
them  that  the  expenditures  for  which  they  asked  an  appropriation  had 
been  not  only  made  without  authority  of  law,  but  in  direct  opposition  to  a 
vote  of  Congress,  refusing  an  appropriation  for  furnishing  the  New  York 
custom  house.    I  asked  Mr.  Frazee  and  Mr.  Tibbetts  if  they  did  not  know 
that  there  was  no  appropriation  made  by  Congress  when  the  work  for 
which  they  now  ask  payment  was  commenced.    They  replied,  that  they 
did  know  that  there  was  no  appropriation  made.    They  also  said  that  they 
knew  that  Congress  had  actually  refused  an  appropriation,  but  they  con- 
tended that  the  work,  furniture,  &c.,  ought  to  be  paid  for,  because  Mr. 
Curtis  and  Mr.  Woodbury  had  authorized  it.    I  informed  Mr.  Frazee,  who 
was  the  principal  speaker  on  the  occasion,  that  Mr.  Woodbury  had  not  au- 
thorized the  expenditure.    I  told  him  that  I  had  examined  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Woodbury,  which  he  (Mr.  Frazee)  said  authorized  the  work,  and  that  it 
contained  nothing  of  (he  kind,  and  that  it  actually  disapproved  any  expendi- 
ture without  authority  of  law.    I  alluded  to  the  large  amount  charged  for 
"painting  and  bronzing  iron  work/'    Mr.  Frazee  said  that  Mr.  Wood- 
bury's letter  particularly  mentioned  the  bronzing.    I  denied  it.  and  told 
him  that  it  contained  no  such  word  as  "  bronzing."    He  said  he  could 
show  me  a  copy  of  the  letter.    I  told  him,  in  reply,  that  I  had  seen  a  copy 
of  the  original,  as  on  file  at  the  Treasury  Department,  and  that  any  copy  pur- 
porting to  contain  the  words  he  said  it  contained  was  a  false  copy.    I  then 
told  them  that  I  was  so  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  impropriety  of  the  con- 
duct of  those  engaged  in  this  affair  of  furnishing  and  finishing  the  New 
York  custom  house,  that  I  had  called  on  Mr.  Fillmore,  the  chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means,  and  informed  him  that  if  he  offered  any  amendment, 
making  an  appropriation  for  the  New  York  custom-house,  I  should  op- 
pose it  strenuously,  unless  a  satisfactory  explanation  could  be  given  :  and 
that  Mr.  Fillmore  told  me  that  application  had  been  made  to  him,  or  to  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and  that  he  had  declined  to  ask  the  House 
for  the  appropriation.    I  told  Mr.  Frazee  and  Mr.  Tibbetts,  that  if  they  had 
thought  proper  to  do  work,  &c,  knowing  that  Congress  had  refused  to 
sanction  it,  they  must  take  the  consequence ;  and  that  my  opinion  was, 
that  gross  frauds  had  been  committed  by  some  person  or  persons,  and  that 
the  determination  to  expend  the  public  money,  in  opposition  to  the  express- 
ed orders  of  Congress,  was,  of  itself,  a  fraud  ;  and  that  any  officer  of  the 
Government  who  had  countenanced  such  a  proceeding  was  guilty  of  fraud, 
in  its  worst  sense.    Mr.  Tibbetts  and  Mr.  Frazee  left  me,  apparently  much 
dissatisfied  with  their  interview.    I  was  convinced,  from  the  cool  and  de- 
liberate manner  in  which  Mr.  Tibbetts  and  Mr.  Frazee  acknowledged  that 
they  had  performed  work,  &c,  knowing  that  there  was  no  appropriation 
to  pay  them,  that  nothing  but  a  severe  rebuke  from  Congress  could  arrest 
such  impropriety  of  conduct  ;  and  therefore  it  was  that  I  immediately 
vent  into  a  thorough  examination  of  these  expenditures.    I  think  Mr.  Tib- 
betts told  me,  in  the  course  of  this  conversation,  that  he  had  called  on  Mr. 


92 


Rep.  No.  10G5. 


Fillmore,  to  ask  the  appropriation  of  $28,  ,  when  the  bill  was  origi- 
nally before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  that  Mr.  Fillmore  had  declined  to  recommend  it. 

Testimony  of  George  Barclay,  taken  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Geo.  Curtis, 

being  sworn. 

Question  by  Mr.  Curtis.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  occu- 
pation ? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York,  and  am  a  merchant,  of  the  firm  of  Bar- 
clay &  Livingston. 

Question  by  same.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Abraham  Storm,  cabinet 
maker  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  am. 

Question  by  same.  What  is  his  character  and  standing  in  the  line  of  his 
business? 

Answer.  He  was  recommended  to  me  as  one  of  the  best  cabinet  makers 
In  the  city  of  New  York,  as  a  man  who  had  lately  began  business,  a  per- 
son of  strict  integrity,  and  one  on  whose  work  I  might  implicitly  rely.  I 
consequently  ordered  furniture  from  him  without  any  previous  agreement 
as  to  price.  That  furniture  gave  entire  satisfaction  to  my  wife,  and  I  ac- 
cordingly paid  his  bill  for  the  same.  I  am  aware  that  many  of  the  first 
individuals  in  the  city  of  New  York,  have  employed  him  in  a  similar  man- 
ner, in  consequence  of  his  good  work. 

Question  by  Mr.  Curtis.  Does  your  business  frequently  lead  you  to  the 
custom-house,  and  have  you  had  ample  opportunity  to  look  at  the  furni- 
ture ;  and  if  so,  what  is  the  character  of  said  furniture? 

Answer.  I  frequently  visit  the  custom-house  on  business,  and  have  been 
particularly  struck  with  the  solidity  and  good  quality  of  the  furniture,  which 
I  believe  is  entirely  of  ma*hogany,  with  iron  stands,  to  prevent  fire  and  to 
support  it  well. 

Wnestion  by  Mr.  Curtis.  From  your  knowledge  of  Mr.  Storm,  do  you 
consider  him  a  proper  and  competent  person  to  have  been  selected  to  make 
that  furniture  ? 

Answer.  Judging  from  the  furniture  made  for  myself  by  him,  from  the 
character  I  received  of  the  individual  before  I  employed  him,  and  from  the 
quality  of  the  furniture  which  I  have  repeatedly  seen  in  his  wareroom,  I 
should  consider  him  a  very  competent  person  to  be  employed  to  make  such 
furniture  for  the  custom-house. 

Question  by  the  committee.  At  what  time  was  Mr.  Storm  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  furniture  for  you  ? 

Answer.  Some  time  in  the  last  summer  or  autumn. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  by  whom  Mr.  Storm  was  recommended  to 
you? 

Answer.  He  was  recommended  to  me  by  my  own  grocer,  Mr.  Smith. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  what  the  pecuniary  means  of 
Mr.  Storm  were  about  April,  1841  ?  and  if  so,  state  what  they  were. 

Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  his  pecuniary  means,  but  believe  that 
he  was  a  young  man  who  had  lately  commenced  business  on  his  own  ac- 
count, and  therefore  I  presumed  his  means  were  not  extensive. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Question.  Do  you  not  consider  that  there  are  a  great  number  of  cabinet 
makers  in  the  city  of  New  York,  who,  taking  their  capital  and  qualifica- 
tions into  consideration,  were  as  competent  to  manufacture  the  furniture 
for  the  custom-house  as  Mr.  Storm  ? 

Answer.  There  is  no  question  of  it. 

Question.  When  did  your  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Storm  take  place,  and 
when  was  he  first  recommended? 

Answer.  I  think  some  time  in  March,  April,  or  May,  of  1S41. 


June  4,  1S42. 

Testimony  of  David  Felt,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  Do  you  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York  ? 
Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  Please  state  whether  you  have  purchased  of  Mr.  John  G» 
Tibbetts  any  iron  desk  frames;  and  if  so,  what  did  you  pay  for  them  per 
pound  ? 

Answer.  I  purchased  of  him,  in  1841,  two  high  stand  desks,  and  one 
low,  at  7i  cents  per  pound. 

Question.  Will  you  state  whether  they  were  of  the  same  pattern  of  those 
in  the  New  York  custom-house? 

Answer.  They  were. 

Question.  Does  the  11  cents  embrace  simply  the  value  of  the  frame  per 
pound,  or  of  the  putting  up  and  all ;  and  if  not,  how  much  did  you  pay 
for  putting  them  up,  and  to  whom  ? 

Answer.  They  were  put  together  and  delivered  to  me  at  that  price. 
When  delivered,  they  were  put  together  ready  to  be  placed  where  required. 

Question  by  committee.  Were  those  frames  bronzed  ;  and  if  so,  by  whom; 
and  what  price  did  you  pay  for  the  bronzing  ? 

Answer.  They  were  brouzed  by  Mr.  Peach.  The  price  paid  for  the 
three,  including  an  iron  railing  of  about  10  feet  and  a  safe  door,  was  $16.. 

Question.  How  does  that  bronzing  compare  with  the  bronzing  of  the. 
desk  frames  and  railing  in  the  custom-house. 

Answer.  It  was  intended  to  have  been  the  same.  I  do  not  think  it  quite 
so  well  done,  particularly  the  door.  As  Peach  complained  of  having  a 
very  hard  bargain  of  it,  I  did  not  urge  the  very  high  finish  that  I  should 
otherwise.  To  the  superficial  eye  it  would  appear  the  same,  as  it  was 
made  of  the  same  material. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  In  what  way  did  you  buy  the  desk  stands ; 
was  it  by  the  pound  or  by  the  job ;  and  how  did  you  come  by  the  weight? 

Answer.  I  bought  them  by  the  job.    I  weighed  them  myself. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  "Was  it  not  understood,  at  the  time,  that  I  sold 
them  to  you  for  a  great  deal  lower  than  they  were  worth,  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  them  introduced  into  use  ? 

Answer.  When  I  wanted  this  work  done,  I  called  on  Mr.  Tibbetts  and 
told  him  that  1  desired  to  have  it  done  cheap,  and  that  if  he  would  do  it 
so,  it  might  be  the  means  of  bringing  his  pattern  into  use.  We  made  an 
estimate  of  the  work  at  8  cents  per  pound,  and  found  that  it  came  to  about 
$60  ;  and  I  then  offered  him  $50  for  the  job,  which  he  accepted,  and  told 


94 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


me  not  to  say  any  thing  about  the  price,  as  he  could  not  afford  to  do  it  for 
that.  He  also  agreed  to  furnish  railing  for  my  use,  to  Mr.  Winant,  who 
was  engaged  in  putting  it  up  for  me.  The  #50  which  I  paid  him  brought 
the  job  to  the  1\  cents  per  pound. 

Question  by  same.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  let  me  know  that  you  wanted 
some  railing  done  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question  by  same.  Did  you  not  say  to  me  that  you  would  call  the  next 
day  and  let  me  know  about  the  railing. 

Answer.  I  did  call  the  next  day,  and  stated  to  Mr.  Tibbetts  that  Mr. 
Winant  was  doing  the  iron  work,  and  that  1  should  prefer  to  have  him 
finish,  and  therefore  desired  to  have  him  sell  the  castings  to  Mr.  Winant, 
which  he  consented  to. 

DAVID  FELT. 

June  5,  1S42. 

Testimony  of  Lorrain  Freeman,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have 
you  been  engaged  it.  it  ? 

Answer.  The  house  smith  business  is  my  occupation — the  same  as  Mr. 
Tibbetts,  except  the  casting  business;  have  been  engaged  about  12  years. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  you  bid  for  the  job  procured  by  Mr.  Tib- 
betts, on  the  New  York  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  I  did  put  in  proposals;  and  paper  marked  B  is  the  amount  of 
my  bid  per  pound. 

Question  by  committee.  To  whom  were  your  proposals  furnished  ? 

Answer.  There  were  two  proposals,  first  directed  to  the  superintendent, 
and  the  last  to  the  commissioners,  Messrs.  Bowne,  Ringgold,  and  Jackson. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  ever  constructed  such  work  as  the 
desk  stands  in  the  custom-house. 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question  by  committee.  What  do  you  suppose  to  be  the  value  of  those 
desk  stands  per  pound,  as  they  now  stand,  including  all  the  cost  and 
labor? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  the  value  of  them  unless  I  knew  the  cost  of  the 
pattern.  I  think  the  cost  of  the  pattern  would  be  about  $100.  The  rough 
castings  are  worth  about  five  or  six  cents  per  pound. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  your  proposals  embrace  wrought  or  cast 
iron  alone,  or"  both  wrought  and  cast? 

Answer.  They  embraced  both  wrought  and  cast,  as  I  understood  it — 
all  the  work  about  the  building. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Would  you,  under  the  contract,  have  felt 
yourself  bound  to  do  all  the  work,  even  to  an  iron  chair,  if  called  for  by 
the  superintendent  ? 

Answer.  I  would. 

Question  by  same.  If  yon  had  known  all  about  the  cost  of  the  patterns, 
would  you  have  been  willing  to  do  it  for  less  than  18|  cents  per  pound? 

Answer.  I  would  not  have  done  it  for  less,  at  that  time,  than  my  bid  of 
IS!  cents  per  pound. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  your  original  proposals  contain  separate 

items  of  the  job  ? 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


95 


Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  whether  they  were  separate  or  general,  as 
I  kept  no  copy. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  you  not  embrace  in  your  proposals  all  the 
castings  that  you  supposed  would  be  necessary  about  the  building  ? 

Answer.  I  had  to  get  at  it  the  best  way  I  could,  estimating  the  propor- 
tion of  castings  from  the  specifications. 

Testimony  of  James  Kelsey,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have 
you  been  engaged  in  it  ? 

Answer.  Working  at  the  house  smith  business.  It  has  been  about  16 
years  since  I  commenced  the  business. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Did  you  put  in  proposals  for  the  contract  for 
iron  work  for  the  custom-house  at  New  York  ? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  I  did. 

Question  by  same.  Did  you  include  all  the  cast  or  wrought  iron  work 
necessary  on  or  about  the  building  ? 
Answer.  I  did. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  What  was  your  price  per  pound  ? 

Answer.  It  was  25  cents  per  pound,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  According  to  your  usual  mode  of  making 
contracts,  would  you  or  would  you  not  include  all  the  desk  frames  and 
railings  for  the  inside  of  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  I  would. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  your  proposals  embrace  any  articles  that 
were  not  in  the  specifications  ? 

Answer.  They  embraced  all  the  iron  work  about  the  building. 

Question  by  committee.  Were  you  or  were  you  not  furnished  with  a 
copy  of  the  specifications  when  you  made  your  bid  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Frazee  exhibited  to  me  a  copy  of  the  specifications  and 
drawings  at  the  custom-house,  before  I  made  my  bid. 

Question  by  committee.  According  to  your  recollection,  was  there 
any  thing  either  in  the  specifications  or  drawings  like  desk  frames  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect,  but  believe  not. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  you  hear  any  thing  said,  before  or  at  the 
time  of  your  bidding,  either  by  Mr.  Frazee  or  any  officer  of  the  custom- 
house, about  the  building  of  iron  desk  frames  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question  by  committee.  Is  it  usual,  when  contracting  for  all  the  iron 
work  necessary  about  a  building,  to  embrace  in  the  contract  any  thing  else 
than  that  which  is  attached  to  the  building  itself  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not. 

Question  by  committee.  Would  you  not  consider  a  sub-treasury  safe  as 
much  belonging  to  a  building  like  the  New  York  custom-house  as  a  chair 
or  a  desk  frame  ? 

Answer.  I  don't  think  I  would  ;  it  is  [not]  customary  to  have  sub-treas- 
ury safes ;  that's  the  first  one  I  ever  heard  of. 

Question  by  committee.  Is  it  customary  to  have  iron  desk  frames  about 
the  building  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Question  by  committee.  Why  then  do  you  consider  a  sub-treasury  safe 
as  less  belonging  to  the  building  than  an  iron  desk  frame  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  so  consider  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Is  not  the  sub-treasury  safe  a  complete  house 
of  itself,  in  form  ? 
Answer.  It  is. 

Question  by  committee.  Do  you  know  who  superintended  or  directed 
the  building  of  that  safe  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question  by  committee.  Was  it  erected  or  built  inside  of  the  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  It  was  built  at  Mr.  Tibbetts's  shop,  and  put  together  in  the  cus- 
tm-house. 

Question  by  committee.  Can  it  be  removed  from  the  custom-house  with- 
out taking  the  safe  to  pieces  ? 
Answer.  It  could  not. 

Question  by  committee.  Cannot  the  desk  frames  be  removed  from  the 
custom-house  without  taking  them  to  pieces? 

Answer.  Some  of  the  largest  cannot  without  injury  ;  the  balance  can. 

Mr.  Kehey  recalled. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Is  heavy  work,  such  as  the  hand  rails,  worth 
more  than  the  light  ? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  I  think  it  is. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  What  is  the  difference  between  a  hollow  rail 
made  of  wrought  iron  and  a  solid  one  of  cast  iron  ? 
Answer.  About  one-third. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Would  you  not  prefer  to  make  single-faced 
doors  than  double-faced,  and  what  do  you  conceive  the  difference  of  the 
labor  to  be  ? 

Answer,  I  would.  The  difference  of  the  labor  I  conceive  to  be  from  25 
to  30  per  cent. 

Question  by  committee.  How  long  did  you  work  for  Mr.  Tibbetts  on 
the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  About  five  years. 

Question  by  committee.  Were  your  wages  paid  you  by  the  week  or  the 

month  ? 

Answer.  By  the  week. 

Question  by  committee.  By  whom  were  your  wages  paid  at  the  expira- 
tion of  each  week  ? 

Answer.  Bv  Mr.  Tibbetts,  through  his  clerk. 

Question  by  committee.  Were  you  paid  in  money  at  the  expiration  of 
each  week  ? 

Answer.  Generally  speaking  ;  some  weeks  I  was  not. 
Question  by  committee.  When  not  paid  in  money,  in  what  did  you  re- 
ceive your  pay  ? 

Answer.  I  charged  it  to  Mr.  Tibbetts. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


97 


John  C.  Robertson  sworn. 

1.  Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  where  do  you 
reside  ? 

Answer.  House  smith ;  I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

2.  Question.  Have  you  examined  the  sub-treasury  vault  made  by  Mr. 
Tibbetts  in  the  New  York  custom-house;  and  if  so,  what  do  you  estimate 
it  to  be  worth  per  pound  ? 

Answer.  It  was  all  together  when  I  saw  it,  and  I  could  not  tell  exactly 
how  it  was  made. 

3.  Question.  Have  you  examined  the  desk  stands  put  up  in  the  New 
York  custom-house  by  Mr.  Tibbetts ;  and  if  so,  what  is  their  value  per 
pound,  including  cost  of  putting  up  ? 

Answer.  I  have  examined  them.  It  depends  altogether  upon  the  pat- 
tern. Independent  of  the  patterns,  they  would  be  worth  about  8  cents  per 
pound.    I  would  be  willing  to  furnish  them  for  that. 

4.  Question.  Have  you  examined  the  railing  put  up  inside  of  the  New 
York  custom-house  in  1841  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  ?  and  if  so,  state  the  value  of 
that  per  pound  in  that  year. 

Answer.  I  have  examined  it.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  railing;  some 
is  straight,  and  some  circular.  I  should  think  it  was  worth  from  10  to  121 
cents  per  pound,  at  that  time,  on  an  average. 

5.  Question.  Have  you  seen  the  deposition  of  Mr.  John  M.  Winant  in 
the  appendix  to  Mr.  Poindexter's  report,  as  printed  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, and  corrected  in  his  deposition  of  this  day,  and  now  exhibited 
to  you,  marked  EE  in  said  report;  and  if  so,  do  you  now  adopt  said  state- 
ment and  calculation  ? 

Answer.  I  have,  and,  with  the  correction,  adopt  it. 

6.  Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  advantages  to  Mr.  Tibbetts  from 
that  contract,  taken  as  a  whole  ? 

Answer.  The  way  Mr.  Tibbetts  finished  it,  I  do  not  think  he  made  as 
much  as  a  great  many  others  would  have  done. 

7.  Question.  Do  you  think  he  made  unusual  profits  from  that  contract, 
in  the  way  he  executed  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

8.  Question.  Did  you  ever  examine  the  specifications  of  the  contract  ? 
Answer.  No. 

9.  Question.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  wages  of  labor  in  1837 
and  1S42,  for  best  workmen  ? 

Answer.  18  shillings  or  $2  25  in  1837,  and  14  shillings  or  $1  75  per  day 
in  1842. 

10.  Question.  What  is  the  difference  for  ordinary  laborers? 

Answer.  10  shillings  or  $1  25  per  day  in  1837,  and  7  shillings  or  87£ 
cents  in  1842. 

11.  Question.  Would  you  have  undertaken  to  build  such  a  sub-treasu- 
ry safe  at  any  thing  under  the  price  paid  Mr.  Tibbetts  ? 

Answer.  I  should  not  have  done  it  for  any  thing  less,  but  I  should  not 
have  undertaken  so  heavy  a  job  at  all. 

12.  Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Were  you  or  were  you  not  deceived  in 
the  construction  of  the  hand  rails  for  the  stairs  ? 

Answer.  I  am  now  informed  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  that  all  the  top  rails  are 


7 


98 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


wrought;  and,  if  so,  I  was  deceived  in  this.  I  thought  they  were  cast,  when 
they  were  wrought,  which  I  did  not  before  understand. 

13.  Question  by  committee.  What  was  the  difference  between  the 
wrought  work  and  the  cast  work,  of  the  character  used  in  the  rails  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  the  wrought  rails  were  worth  twice  or  three 
times  as  much. 

14.  Question.  At  the  time  when  he  furnished  these  railings,  state  what 
was  the  worth  of  cast  and  wrought  railings,  put  up. 

Answer.  I  think  the  cast,  independent  of  the  patterns,  10  cents  per  pound, 
the  wrought  from  20  to  25  cents  per  pound,  according  to  their  weight — the 
heavier  it  is,  the  cheaper. 

15.  Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Would  not  wrought  railings,  made  in  that 
way,  weigh  less  than  if  made  of  cast  iron  ?    If  so,  state  the  difference. 

Answer.  They  would.  I  cannot  tell  the  difference,  not  knowing  the 
thickness. 

Testimony  of  William  Young,  being  sworn  by  the  chairman. 

Question  by  committee.  Are  you  an  iron  manufacturer  ;  and  if  so,  how 
long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business  ? 

Answer.  1  entered  my  apprenticeship  to  that  business  in  1807,  and  have 
been  connected  with  it  ever  since.  I  came  from  Ireland  to  this  country  m 
1816,  and  In  1817  commenced  the  building  and  superintendence  of  the 
West  Point  foundry,  and  continued  the  superintendence  of  it  until  1S31, 
when,  in  the  month  of  September  of  that  year,  I  went  to  the  Ulster  Iron 
Works  ;  was  president  of  that  company  until  April,  1S40;  I  am  now  the 
president  of  the  Maryland  and  New  York  Iron  and  Coal  Company. 

Question  by  committee.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  kind  of  iron  used 
by  Mr.  Tibbetts  on  the  New  York  custom-house  ?  Was  any  of  it  furnish- 
ed by  you,  and  at  what  price  ? 

Answer.  We  furnished  a  part  of  the  iron  to  Mr.  Tibbetts  in  1837  or  1S38; 
the  iron  for  the  window  sash  we  let  him  have  at  S  cents  a  pound,  he  pay- 
ing the  cost  of  turning  and  fitting  the  rolls ;  the  cost  of  which,  per  pair, 
complete,  would  be  from  $250  to  $300  ;  of  which  I  think  he  paid  about 
#100 — the  expense  of  turning  and  putting  them  up. 

Question  by  committee.  What,  according  to  your  opinion,  would  the 
window  frames  be  worth  per  pound,  after  completion,  according  to  the 
specification,  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I  would  think  about  18  cents. 

Question  by  Tibbetts.  Is  there  a  difference  in  the  value  of  the  sashes 
when  solid  and  when  hollow  :  and  if  so,  what  ? 

Answer.  I  would  think  when  hollow  they  would  be  worth  25  cents. 

Question  by  committee.  What  was  the  value  of  boiler  iron  about  the 
time  vou  furnished  Mr.  Tibbetts  with  the  iron  you  speak  of— say  1837  or 
1838? 

Answer.  I  think  from  9  to  10  cents  per  pound.  In  1836  it  was  as  high 
as  13  cents. 

Question  by  committee.  What  do  you  consider  the  value  per  pound  of  the 
doors  in  the  New  York  custom-house,  built  according  to  the  specifications? 

Answer.  It  would  depend  something  upon  the  year.  In  1836,  the  iron 
was  up  to  13  cents  per  pound,  and  has  been  gradually  reducing  since. 


Rep.  No.  1055. 


99 


Question.  Suppose  the  iron  to  have  cost  10  cents  per  pound,  what,  then, 
would  have  been  the  value,  exclusive  of  locks  ? 

Answer.  I  should  put  the  price  of  them  at  19  cents,  and  would  not  be 
willing  to  contract  for  them  at  less  ;  at  10  cents  per  pound  for  boiler 
plate.  It  is  usual  to  allow  6  cents  per  pound  for  the  work  on  steam  boilers, 
and  there  is  more  work,  by  one-half,  on  these  doors.  This  estimate  is  ex- 
clusive of  locks  and  painting. 

Question.  What  is  the  value  of  the  railing  in  the  custom-house,  con- 
structed according  to  the  specifications  ? 

Answer.  I  could  not  determine  the  value  of  the  railing  without  going 
into  an  estimate  of  the  expense  of  the  patterns.  When  a  small  quantity  of 
work  has  been  done,  the  cost  of  these  patterns  will  increase  the  aggregate 
cost  of  the  work.  Not  having  examined  this  work  with  a  view  to  fix  the 
prices,  I  cannot  give  a  very  satisfactory  opinion.  It  would  be  impossible 
to  do  so,  without  examining  the  drawings  furnished  by  the  superintend- 
ent. The  specifications  leave  the  plan  entirely  for  the  superintendent.  I 
will  say,  however,  that,  upon  a  small  job,  the  patterns  may  cost  more  than 
the  iron. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  or  seen  the  desk  frames,  made  by  Mr. 
Tibbetts,  for  the  custom-house  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  have  not.  They  were  not  there  at  the  time  I  was  in  New 
York  ;  when  I  went  through  the  house  there  was  nothing  of  them  there. 

Question.  Can  you  give  any  opinion  of  the  value  of  those  frames  from 
the  bill  now  before  you  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  impossible  to  do  so  without  an  inspection  of  them. 

Testimony  of  James  P.  Allaire,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have 
you  been  engaged  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  steam  engine  builder,  brass  and  iron  founder ;  have 
been  in  business  about  35  years. 

Question  by  committee.  What  was  the  value  of  boiler  iron  in  the  city 
of  New  York  during  the  year  1S38  ? 

Answer.  It  has  been  varying  from  1835  down  to  the  present  time,  from 
\2h  cents  down  to  53  cents. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  seen  the  doors  built  in  the  custom- 
house at  New  York,  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  ;  and  if  so,  what  do  you  suppose  to 
have  been  their  value  per  pound,  estimating  them  at  the  prices  of  iron  dur- 
ing the  years  1S37,  1S3S,  and  1839  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  them,  and  should  suppose  them  to  be  worth  40 
cents  per  pound,  embracing  locks  and  all. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  seen  the  desk  stands,  built  by  Mr. 
Tibbetts,  in  the  custom-house,  and  what  do  you  suppose  them  to  be  worth 
per  pound  ? 

Answer.  That  would  depend  upon  the  quantity  to  be  made.  It  would 
be  almost  impossible  to  give  an  estimate,  unless  I  knew  the  quantity,  and 
the  terms  upon  which  he  made  them.  Many  of  the  castings  have  cost  him 
twice  as  much  for  the  patterns  as  the  castings  are  worth  by  weight.  Some 
of  the  castings,  such  as  the  bracket  beams,  are  heavy.  Such  castings  as 
the  desk  stands,  furnished  by  a  person  engaged  in  the  business  of  making 
them  as  a  pursuit,  would  be  worth  about  6  cents  per  pound. 


100 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Question  by  committee.  What  would  be  the  value  per  pound  of  put- 
ting them  up  ? 

Answer.  The  labor  on  iron  work  generally  is  about  equal  to  the  value 
of  the  iron. 

Question  by  committee.  Will  you  examine  bill  marked  A,  furnished  by 
Mr.  Tibbetts,  and  state  whether  the  prices  therein  are  or  are  not  according 
to  the  market  prices  of  such  work  and  materials,  at  the  times  of  furnishing 
them  ? 

Answer.  Take  the  work  as  a  separate  job,  and  have  no  other  business 
of  the  same  sort,  it  is  about  as  low  as  it  can  be  done.  It  is  very  probable 
that  many  of  the  patterns  of  this  work  may  never  be  used  again,  in  which 
event  they  will  be  a  dead  loss. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  been  accustomed  to  make  desk  stands 
of  iron  ;  and  if  so,  do  you  consider  such  work  as  furniture,  or  as  attached 
to  and  belonging  to  a  building  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  been  accustomed  to  make  them,  though  I  make 
castings  generally.    I  think  such  work  is  furniture. 

Question.  How  are  the  desks  and  railings  attached  to  the  building  ? 

Answer.  The  railing  is  fast  in  the  floor,  but  the  desks  are  not,  but  fitted 
in  parts  of  the  building,  as  wooden  furniture  would  be. 

Testimony  of  John  Mills,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have 
you  been  engaged  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  machinist,  and  have  been  engaged  about  20  years  \ 
served  my  time  with  Mr.  Allaire. 

Question  by  same.  Have  you  seen  the  desk  stands,  built  by  Mr.  Tibbetts, 
in  the  custom-house,  and  what  do  you  suppose  them  to  be  worth  per  pound  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  them,  but  can't  tell  the  value.  I  think  the  state- 
ment made  by  Mr.  Allaire,  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  the  labor  of  making 
them,  is  correct. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  What  were  the  patterns  made  of? 

Answer.  Of  block  tin  and  copper. 

Question  by  same.  How  often  did  you  see  us  sometimes  try  before  we 
could  get  a  perfect  casting  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  you  try  as  often  as  eight  times.  I  think  the  wooden 
pattern  of  the  large  double  desk  stand  cost  about  $150. 


June  5,  1842. 
Mr.  Mills  recalled. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Is  heavy  work  worth  more  than  light,  after 
it  reaches  beyond  the  usual  size? 

Answer.  1  should  think  it  was  worth  considerable  more,  in  consequence 
of  having  to  call  many  mechanics  off  of  their  work  to  help  to  lift  and 
handle  it. 

Testimony  of  William  Goadley,  being  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  lout  have 
you  been  engaged  in  it  ? 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


101 


Answer.  My  occupation  is  grate  and  fender  making,  which  I  hare  pur- 
sued for  about  14  years. 

Question  by  committee.  Are  you  acquainted  with  such  work  as  the  desk 
stands  in  the  New  York  custom-house;  and  if  so,  what  is  the  value  of  them 
per  pound,  including  cost  of  patterns,  and  all  the  expenses  of  putting 
them  up  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  that  such  castings,  independent  of  the  patterns, 
would  be  worth  from  six  to  eight  cents  per  pound ;  that  the  expense  of  the 
patterns  for  the  large  desk  frames  would  be  from  Si 50  to  $175.  There 
was  a  single  desk  pattern,  I  think,  worth  from  $75  to  $85.  There  was  a 
low  double  desk  pattern,  worth  from  $15  to  $85.  There  were  three  pat- 
terns for  the  railing,  worth  in  all  from  Si  SO  to  $200.  There  was  another 
double  desk,  worth  from  $75  to  $85.  There  were  two  patterns  for  book 
case  feet,  worth  from  $25  to  $30  for  the  two.  These  embrace  all  the  pat- 
terns that  I  have  any  recollection  of. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Would  you  consider  that  these  articles  were 
embraced  in  the  contract,  had  you  been^the  contractor  ? 

Answer.  I  would. 

Question  by  committee.  What  do  you  suppose  would  be  the  cost  of  put- 
ting up  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say;  I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  such  work. 
Testimony  of  Robert  G.  Ennson,  being  siuorn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  how  long  have 
you  been  engaged  in  it  ? 

Answer.  My  present  occupation  is  a  pattern  maker.  I  have  been  en- 
gaged in  it,  but  not  exclusively,  for  the  last  ten  years. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  seen  the  desk  frames  and  railing 
furnished  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  for  the  New  York  custom-house ;  and  if  so, 
what  would  be  the  value  of  the  patterns,  per  pound,  of  such  work  ? 

Answer.  I  made  all  the  patterns  for  them.  It  would  be  impossible  for 
me  to  say  what  the  value  per  pound  would  be.  The  straight  patterns  for 
the  railing  took  me  two  months ;  there  was  a  circular  one  which  took  me 
one  month  ;  there  was  a  second  sweep,  altered  from  the  first,  but  I  do 
not  recollect  how  long  it  took ;  the  carving  of  the  pattern  for  the  double  desk 
took  me  six  weeks  ;  the  chasing  or  cleaning  up  of  the  metal  patterns  is 
about  as  much  work  as  the  carving.  There  is  a  single  high  desk  pattern, 
of  about  one-half  the  labor  of  the  other.  There  is  a  low  desk  pattern,  or 
table,  about  equal  to  the  high  one,  and  a  low  double  one  ;  a  low  single, 
I  think  about  eight  or  nine  days'  labor  on  it.  There  was  a  pattern  for  the 
book  case  feet,  on  which  there  were  a  number  of  alterations,  about  nine  or 
ten  days  ;  also  two  patterns  of  two  varieties  for  single  feet,  took  about  four 
days ;  also  a  pattern  for  rotundo  desk,  about  seven  days.  There  was 
about  six  weeks  consumed  by  a  carpenter  in  making  flasks  ;  also,  consider- 
able time  consumed  by  machinists  in  fitting  them  together. 

Question  by  committee.  What  was  the  whole  amount  paid  you  by  Mr, 
Tibbetts  for  all  the  patterns  furnished  by  you,  on  the  desk  stands  and 
railing  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  answer  this  question.  He 
paid  me  $2  a  day. 

Question  by  committee.  During  the  time  of  which  you  speak,  were 
you  engaged  on  any  other  work  for  Mr.  Tibbetts  ? 


102 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Answer.  So  far  as  I  can  recollect,  the  time  I  name  was  the  time  spent 
upon  this  particular  work,  though  I  was  engaged  ou  other  work. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  the 
desks,  as  they  now  stand  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Take  the  whole  of  the  work  together,  as  it 
now  stands,  would  you  consider  the  desks,  &c,  as  within  the  contract,  as 
you  heard  it  read  ? 

Answer.  I  would  so  consider  them. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Have  you  seen  as  good  work  in  this  or  any 
other  country,  in  the  same  line  of  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not ;  and  I  have  visited  London  and  Edinburgh,  and  a 
great  many  other  places. 

Question  by  committee.  Have  you  ever  made  a  contract  for  large  jobs 
of  iron  work  ? 

Answer.  No. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Was  not  the  sub-treasury  safe  made  so  that 
it  could  be  taken  down  and  removed  without  injury? 

Answer.  It  was  so  constructed  that  it  could  be  taken  down  and  removed 
Avith  safety. 

Question  by  committee.  Is  the  sub-treasury  safe  any  less  a  part  of  the 
building  than  the  iron  desk  frames  ? 

Answer.  It  was  not  understood  that  this  safe  was  to  be  constructed 
under  the  authority  by  which  the  contract  with  Mr.  Tibbetts  was  made. 
About  the  time  it  was  made,  I  saw  a  piece  of  paper,  containing  a  plan 
drawn  by  Mr.  Frazee,  which  required  the  endorsement  of  a  single  name 
for  its  adoption.  I  afterwards  saw  it  with,  I  think,  the  name  of  Jesse 
Hoyt ;  under  the  authority  of  that  instrument  it  was  built. 


June  4,  1842. 

John  M.  IVinant,  sworn. 

Question  by  committee.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  where  do  you 
reside  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  blacksmith,  and  live  in  New  York  city. 

Question.  Did  you  purchase  from  Mr.  Tibbetts  iron  railing  for  Mr.  Felt; 
and  if  so,  at  what  price  ? 

Answer.  I  purchased  the  castings  from  him,  and  the  top  rail.  I  think  I 
paid  him  six  cents  a  pound. 

Question.  \YTere  they  similar  to  those  used  in  the  New  York  custom- 
house ? 

Answer.  They  were  cast  after  the  same  patterns,  I  believe. 

Question*  Have  you  examined  the  sub-treasury  vault,  made  by  Mr.  Tib- 
betts, in  the  New  York  custom-house ;  and  if  so,  what  do  you  estimate  it 
to  be  worth  per  pound  ? 

Answer.  I  have  examined  it;  I  suppose  it  to  be  worth  181  cents  per 
pound,  without  the  combination  locks. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  the  desk  stands  put  up  in  the  New  York 
custom-house  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  •  and  if  so,  what  is  their  value  per  pounds 
including  cost  of  putting  up  ? 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


103 


Answer.  I  have  examined  them, and  would  eslimate  them  at  eight  cents 
per  pound,  without  the  patterns. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  the  railing  put  up  inside  of  New  York 
custom-house,  in  1841,  by  Mr.  Tibbetts?  and  if  so,  state  the  value  of  that 
per  pound,  in  that  year. 

Answer.  I  have  ;  in  1841  it  was  worth  about  ten  cents  per  pound,  ex- 
clusive of  the  patterns. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  your  deposition  in  the  appendix  to  Mr,  Poin- 
dexter's  report,  as  printed  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  now  ex- 
hibited to  you,  marked  EE  in  said  report;  and  if  so,  do  you  now  adopt 
said  statement  and  calculation  ? 

Answer.  I  have,  and  adopt  the  same,  with  the  exception  of  the  follow- 
ing :  Russia  iron  should  be  refined  iron,  in  the  5th  line,  on  page  258 ; 
and  1842  should  be  1841,  in  the  6th  line  from  the  beginning,  on  page  257. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Did  you  pay  more  for  the  hand  or  top  rail 
than  for  the  castings  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  about  that. 

Question  by  same.  Did  you  know  how  the  sub-treasury  chest  was  con- 
structed inside  of  the  sheathing?  If  so,  state  how  it  was  framed  and  fitted 
together. 

Answer.  I  suppose  it  to  be  flat  bars  with  round  holes,  either  punched 
or  drilled,  filled  on  the  insrae  with  round  bars,  about  four  or  six  inches 
apart. 

Question  by  same.  Did  those  bars  pass  through  the  whole  of  the  up- 
right bars,  top,  bottom,  and  ends  ? 

Answer.  I  think  they  did. 

Question.  How  could  you  tell  that  ? 

Answer.  Because  I  saw  it  before  it  was  put  together. 

Question.  Did  not  you  consider  it  worth  more  in  that  way  than  if  only 
covered  on  one  side  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Would  not  the  iron  cut  to  great  waste  in  cutting  out  a  chest 
of  that  description,  and  is  it  not  very  laborious  ?  Does  it  not  require  a 
great  deal  of  exactness  to  drill  all  those  holes  ? 

Answer.  If  the  iron  was  ordered  for  it,  it  would  not  have  cut  to  so 
much  waste.    It  is  laborious,  and  requires  exactness  to  drill  the  holes. 

Question.  Would  you  have  made  the  circular  rail  in  the  rotundo  as 
cheap  as  you  would  have  made  the  straight  railing  ? 

Answer.  Not  taking  the  job  separate. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  work  so  well  faced  and  finished,  generally, 
throughout,  as  the  doors  and  work  of  the  New  York  custom-house  ? 
Answer.  I  never  saw  any  finished  as  well. 
Question.  Did  you  not  propose  for  that  work  ? 
Answer.  No. 

Question.  Did  you  know  proposals  would  be  received  for  the  work  at 
the  time  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  you  know  of  any  one  else  making  propo- 
sals for  the  work,  and  of  the  prices  proposed  ? 
Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  Why  did  you  not  offer  proposals  when  you 
saw  it  advertised  ? 


104 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Answer.  Because  we  thought  we  would  not  get  it,  at  any  shape. 
Question.  Who  did  you  presume  would  have  been  accepted? 
Answer.  I  presumed  nothing  about  it,  for  I  did  not  know  any  thing 
about  it. 

Question  by  committee.  Why  did  you  presume  you  would  not  get  it  ? 
Answer.  Because  I  did  not  belong  to  that  party. 

Question  by  committee.  Did  you  conceive  this  contract  to  be  an  advan- 
tageous one  to  Mr.  Tibbetts? 

Answer.  Taken  as  a  whole,  including  the  rough  work  and  the  fine  work, 
I  should  consider  it  a  good  job. 

Question.  Would  you,  at  the  time  he  took  it,  have  taken  it  at  any  less 
sum  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  I  would  have  done  at  that  time. 
Question.  Was  the  contract  an  uncommonly  profitable  one  ? 
Answer.  At  that  time  I  would  not  have  said  so,  as  stock  and  wages  were 
very  high. 

Question  by  Mr.  Tibbetts.  What  per  cent,  have  you  reduced  your  jour- 
neymen's wages  since  1837? 

Answer.  An  average  of  fifty  cents  a  day.  We  paid  them  18  shillings, 
or  #2  25,  and  now  we  pay  14  shillings,  or  $\  75  cents,  to  our  best  work- 
men.   To  laborers  we  paid  9  shillings  a  day  thfi,  and  7  shillings  now. 

Tettimony  of  Noah  Brown. 

Question.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Answer.  Ship  carpenter  mostly,  but  have  also  carried  on  the  business 
of  manufacturing  boilers  for  steamboats,  and  other  blacksmith  business. 

Question.  Have  you  examined  the  iron  work  done  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  on 
the  New  York  custom-house?  and  if  so,  state  what  you  suppose  to  be  the 
value  of  it  per  pound. 

Answer.  I  did  examine  it,  looked  all  over  it,  and  thought  it  was  handsomely 
done  ;  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  doing  iron  work  myself,  and  suppose  it 
to  be  worth  from  16  to  20  cents  per  pound;  the  wrought  is  worth  more 
than  the  cast. 

Question.  What  is  the  worth  of  the  cast  work  done  by  Mr.  Tibbetts  ? 

Answer.  I  should  not  be  willing  to  make  the  patterns,  and  do  it  for  less 
than  IS  cents  per  pound  ;  the  patterns  are  sometimes  worth  more  than  the 
metal. 

Question.  What  is  the  value  of  the  wrought  work  ? 
Answer.  I  should  think  the  rails  were  worth  about  20  cents  per  pound. 
Question.  Take  the  desk  frames  as  they  now  stand,  what  is  their  value 
per  pound  ? 

Answer.  I  could  not  tell  exactly  ;  if  I  were  there,  I  could  give  a  better 
guess  ;  I  should  think  they  ought  to  have  been  worth  from  18  to  20  cents. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  ship  building  busi- 
ness? 

Answer.  A  little  over  fifty  years;  I  have  built  more  ships  than  any  man 
in  the  United  States  ;  have  followed  the  blacksmith  business  with  fifteen 
fires  going. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


105 


New  York,  July  27,  1842. 

Sir:  At  the  request  of  Mr.  John  G.  Tibbetts,  I  address  you  as  chair- 
man of  the  select  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  take 
leave  to  state  that  I  was  one  of  the  commissioners  for  the  building  of  the 
New  York  custom-house,  and  made  the  contract  for  the  iron  work  of  the 
building,  &c.  That,  having  been  an  ironmaster  myself,  I  paid  particular 
attention  to  the  contract  for  the  iron  work.  Advertisements  were  issued, 
inviting  proposals  for  the  work  ;  and  that,  after  a  careful  examination  of  all 
the  bids,  it  was  found  that  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Tibbetts  was  the  lowest, 
and  the  most  favorable  to  the  Government.  That,  in  making  the  contract 
with  Mr.  Tibbetts,  I  was  aware  of  the  fact  that  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
work  (viz:  iron  doors,  window  sashes,  locks,  and  other  fixtures)  would 
cost  him  as  a  blacksmith  far  more  than  the  contract  price.  The  contract  was 
drawn  by  the  U.  S.  district  attorney,  with  the  view,  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
missioners, of  giving  Mr.  Tibbetis  the  benefit  of  ail  the  iron  work  ivhick 
might  be  required  in  or  about  the  building,  of  any  sort  or  description  ;  and 
that,  in  my  opinion,  the  iron  stands  for  the  desks,  as  well  as  the  railing, 
come  within  the  contract  and  the  intention  of  the  commissioners. 

You  and  the  whole  of  Congress  (if  you  could  see  it)  would  say,  that 
Mr.  Tibbetts  has  faithfully  performed  the  work  in  the  most  perfect  man- 
ner, and  that  it  is  unjust  to  withhold  from  him  that  which  he  is  richly  en- 
titled to — pay  for  his  services. 

It  is  not  improper  for  me  to  state  that  I  have  never  received  any  com- 
pensation for  my  services  as  commissioner,  in  any  shape  or  form. 
I  am,  with  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

DANIEL  JACKSON. 

Hon.  Richard  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  Select  Committee,  Ho.  of  Reps. 

P.  S.  As  you  and  I  are  not  acquainted  with  each  other,  I  beg  leave  to 
ask  you  to  inquire  through  any  of  the  following,  viz  : 

Hon.  William  C.  Rives,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Silas  Wright,  John  J.  Crit- 
tenden, and  Mr.  Tallmadge,  the  delegation  from  New  York,  S?c. 

Again:  if  you  are  acquainted  with  Gen.  Ward,  pray  ask  him  what  he 
knows  of  the  custom-house;  I  think  he  feels  more  interest  for  our  city 
than  either  of  its  Representatives. 


New  York,  July  5,  1842. 
Sir:  On  the  2d  instant,  I  addressed  a  letter  to  you  in  relation  to  the  ex- 
aminations and  estimates  of  the  fair  prices  and  value  of  the  furniture  made 
by  me  for  the  New  York  custom-house.  I  now  take  the  liberty  to  send 
you  a  copy  of  the  separate  estimates  of  Matthew  King,  John  L.  Fendall, 
Thomas  Williams,  and  William  Wallace,  contained  in  the  accompanying 
papers.  It  is  proper  to  state  that  each  of  these  persons  acted  separately, 
and  without  knowledge  of  the  prices  I  had  charged  in  the  bills.  You  will 
observe  that  my  charges,  in  the  aggregate,  are  fully  and  more  than  sustain- 
ed. The  originals  of  these  estimates  are  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, and  are  signed  by  the  parties.  I  have  also,  in  order  to  show  the  un- 
questionable character  and  standing  of  these  gentlemen,  sent  to  the  Secre- 


L06 


Hep.  No.  1065. 


tary  of  the  Treasury  a  written  declaration,  signed  by  six  of  the  first  cabi- 
net makers  of  this  city,  attesting  that  full  confidence  may  be  safely  placed 
in  the  judgment  of  these  persons.  I  send  you  a  copy  of  the  certificate. 
Duncan  Phyfe  and  William  Mandeville,  if  not  others,  who  have  signed  this 
paper,  must  be  personally  known  to  Mr.  Roosevelt,  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives; and  I  refer  to  him  for  information  concerning  them. 
Yours,  respectfullv, 

'     ABRAHAM  STORM, 
Cabinet  maker,  No.  455  Broadway. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Thompson, 

Chairman  Select  Committee,  H.  B. 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


107 


C  C  X)  c  c 

o  o     o  o 


o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o 


000-  -ooNwojn>o 

O  O  —  t^7W00iO'O>«i 
O^CO  0*  CO  0*  C5 

1— I 


oooooooo 
ocoooooo 


ooooooooooooot^ooooo 

Ot^^OOl^-00000000--«<-'0000 

CO  C:  (C  O  O  Ol  O)  O  C  IT)  (O  CO  O)  lO  W  h  O)  O  H 
«    tX  CO   «   O)  H  — «  r-i 


TfTf^oocorfCOOOOON'tO'OOO 
COOOC2CC--'Ot^OCO^OC^C^ 


O  *0  O  O 

O      c  o 


lO-fCOiOO^CCOOOOtOOClHOOO^Tf 
OCOOHO)-#^iOCt5iO^O>!OTfHO)NH 
O  O)  N  CO  CO  O)  ^-i  r-t 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

oooooooooo»oo»ooo 
ooooorf  coioccoh^coioco 

O*  CO  O*  'tf  01  O*  Ci  r-4 


o  o  o 

o  o  o 

»0  O  <X> 

CO  CO  — • 


oooooocoooooooooooo 
ooooooocooooooooooo 

OtOW^voOOJO^OlCSiOOO^OOOCil^Tf* 
OC5^0^0JlOvOCOCOCOCOO)TrCOHO)CNi-( 
N  W  «  rr  CN  O)  Ci  r-.  r-t 


a 
o 


•'5  °  r  '3 


WD 


CO 


CO 


CD  CD 

o  5  a>  a 

O          09  2  W 

o 

~C3        co  co 

6    -5  g-S 


0) 

c    •    •    •  • 

3 

o 
o 


00 
CD 
00 

a 
o 

m  o  o  o  o 

o 

o 


CO 
CD 

so 
o 

CO  r| 
CD  w 
CO 

X!  S 

.t3  CO 
>  CP 

o  o 
tn  to 


co 

'-a 

In 

cd 

CO 


CD  — ; 

cud  cs 


S3 


S  J2    1     1  © 


CO 


Tf   CJ   CD   CC  CD 

CD  50 
—    CD    CD  ^  CD 

g>  EPS  >  3 


CD 

§  s 

-do 

"53    CO  *-» 

g  CD 


co  O 

o 


^  -      J=J  .2 


^C*O*Tf*Tf'Tf(00~«CO--«^O}COr-iC>* 


^  h  CO  W 


108 


Bep.  No.  1065. 


o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

O  CO  O  CO 

co  o  cr. 

y>  CO- 


CO o  c  o 

O  O  C  O 


CO  >o  iC  h 
O  »0  CO 


oooooooooo 
oooooooooo 

ooo«awxioooio 

O  »0  CM  C<  W 

CO  i— «  <— « 


O  O  O  O 
C  O  O  O 

CO         O  C) 

co 


o  o  c  o 

o  o  o  o 

en  <o  o  co 

CO         O  CD 

CO  — 


»0      O  O 

Oi  CO  O 


CO  CI  CO  P- 

CO  CO  CO 


a>  o  co  o 


—  CO  10 
CO  I-  iO 


I^VOOOOOOOOO 

i^ao»oooooooo 

0*COl^COOl»OC04OCO>0 
t»  Tf  CO  r"  C<  (M  h  (X 
CI  fH  CI 


*oci-rooooooo 

COCICOOOOOCOO 

cot^cococr.coco»ocr5to 

O  —  co  —        —  CI  C*  CI  CI 

CO  IM  <>| 


o 
o 

CO 

^111 


o  o  o  o 
c  o  o  o 


o  o  o 

CM  CO  CO 


00 


ooocooooo 
ooocooooo 

io  O  o  co  go  oi  O  Of  O 
mo  o>  h      h  n  h  oi 

CI  ~  — i 


o  o  o  o 
o  c  o  o 

0  0  0  0} 
CO  o  c 
5&  CO 


o  o  o  o 
coco 


«o  CI  CO 

o  >o  « 


oooooooooo 
oooooooooo 

OC0'fC0t^C>C0CiCX)»O 
h  I1  O  h        --<  CI        ^  CI 

CI 


co 

03 

co 
aS 

CJ 

o 
o 
pQ 

cd 

CUD 


CO  CO 


a> 

CO 

cd 


o 


O  c*5 

*  § 


ci  O 
CO  CJ 


CO 

o  .S 


II 

*  s 
S3 

Wo 


CO  co  _o 


c5 


CD  0) 
.0)  .CD 


G 


lO  CO  £ 


CD 
CO 

cS 
o 

J* 
o 
o 

-°  o 

^3  n3 


,24 

CD 


t3 

S-l 

cd 

> 
o 
o 

CD  W 
03  O 


CD 

■Sit- 
*s  .1 

CO 


o  o  o 


03 

CO 

b3 
CJ 
M 

□ 
5 


o 

CD  JD 

CO  +~  C 
t-  CO 


-3  ~  CD 


a,  cd 
cx2 


«— »CIC|i— <— Hf— i"*^ 


Bep.  No.  1065. 


109 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

©  CO  to  ©  ©  GO  Ci 

CO  CO  |>  lO  © 

i— t  r-«  O) 


O  O  N  C5  O  O  O 

©  ©  CO  ©  ©  ©  © 

©  ©  ©  »C  O  CO  © 

O  ©  00  CO  00  © 

CO         i-t  CO 


©©OOCcN^OO©© 
OOOOOCOOTfOO 

oooo^«oioon 

COO>CiOOCOt>COO* 
00  N  h  W        CO  N  h 


t  o  o  »o  CO  o  o 

O  O  O  00  to  O  O 


0*  ©  GO  CO  GO  O 
CO       co       W  m 


©  Tf  io  *o  o  ©  © 

O  Ci  I>  CO  ©  ©  © 

CO  O*  C>  Ci  O  CO  C5 

O  (O  h  >0  00  © 

CO  <—  CO 


©Tf©0©©©©© 

OCOOO^COCOCO 

TfTfCOOb-HOOOCO 
O^C3O05O0J0)N 
00  N  h  O)        ^  o*  — i 


CO  ^  O  W  O  O 

O*  ©  ©  O*  ©  © 

O  1*  W  ^  »0  00  O) 

CO  CO  CO  *-*  ©  h 

1—1  ■— I  © 


Whb"OONCO 

r>  co  C7i  i-t  ©  i-h  co 

w  h  w  co  c;  w  co 

O  CO  Tf  Cl       oo  to 

tO  ^  0* 


to«-^i>.or^coorrto 

COC9C5©l>«OCOOO< 

0)tOGO©Cit^^l>CO 
O5©t^»O©00G0COC< 

co  N      o*  r-i      co  cx 


©  ©  ©  o  o  © 
©©©©©© 

©  ©  o  ©  ©  © 

CO  to  CO  to  ©  o*  I 

i— I  •— <  CO 


©  ©  ©  © 
©  ©  ©  © 


©  © 
©  © 


©  ©  ©  to       ©  © 

O  co  N  co    I  CJ  © 

CO  r-l  CO 


©©©©©o©©© 
o©©©©©©©© 

©voO©©©©©to 
Q0G0©O©-fCO'*,CX 


©  o  ©  o  ©  ©  © 

©  ©  o  o  ©  ©  © 

CO  CO  Ci  CI  ©  00  Ci 

to  CO  CO  rj>  ©  H 

i-4  O) 


©  ©  O  ©  ©  O  © 

©  o  ©  ©  ©  ©  © 

©  CO  O)  ©  Ci  CO  O 

O  »C  h  h  00  © 

CO         i-i  CO 


©©©©©©©©© 
©©©©©©©©© 

O)©CO©tO00CO00CO 

r~  o*  r-i  o*      co  w  h 


3 


bo 

c 
o 


CO 


o 
o 
H3 

CO 


+j  CO 


CO 

cp  co 

o 

-Q  X>  ^ 

h  W  CO 
13    ^    CD  50 

CD  KM 

13  bo  bp  0 


CP     „  vo 


^  i2 
o  o 
o  o 


ft)  ^  i  o 

J2  co 


co  ^ 

CP    r-i  CP 

£PTe> 

cc?  a> 
—  —  X! 
rf  d  tZ) 


© 
^5 


d 

CO 


o 
o 
i3 


CO  o~ 


cp  C 


to  3 

«N  O 

Is 

CP  00 
^—  CP 

bfi  > 
a 

-  CP 


£ 

o 

•  o 
<-a 

CO 

rs 

bp 
i  S 

CO 
CP 

o 

d 

©* 

CO  "cp 
J-.  CP 

*  2 

Ct  ^ 

CP 
W  CO 

o*  d 

CM  O 

So 

3.2 

CP  CP 

bo  too 
•~ 


-2  -o  13 


CJ 

1 

Si 


CO 

1-4 

o 
o 


o  ' 

co  co 
bij^ 

s  -2 

w  co 

CP  ^ 

co 

—  CO 


o 
o 
-a 


s 

cc5 

CO 

I  — 

<p 

CO  ^ 

CP  as 


CP  CP 

.0)  ,CP 


CO  l> 


o  o 

O 


co  cp 

O  l> 
^3  c 


C  O 

h  ^d 

cp  "S 

CP 
CP 

.ti  > 

i>  O 
o 


CP 
13 


CO 

O 

o 


o  d 

co^:  ^ 
co  .-d  cp 
^2  >  -d 
o  J5 


CO 


cp  co 
^  ~  to  Tt* 


CO 


CP 


CP 

bD 


o  o 


CP  CO 

e3  cp 
*-  13 
bpa> 

5s3 


>  ° 


«  H   «  H  H  Tf 


CO 
^5 
CO 
CP 

bjo 
c 

'co 


01  f» 


no 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


o  «o  o  o  o 

05  t*  O  O  O 


X  C  >0  (O 
—  Tf  GO  CO  CD 


S9 


C.  O  C  O  QO 
go  o  ©  ©  00 


o  o  o  o 
o  o  c  o 


cm  ot  -r  a  a.  cm  co  :o  ct. 


c  o 

c  o 

o  o 

CO  O 

CO  CO 


o  o  o  c  o 
o  o  o  o  o 


«0  Ci  »0  CO  f* 

c  t  co  n  a> 


o  c 

T  O 


O  T 

C  CO 


o  o  o  o 
o  c  c  o 


o>  co  io  -r  co  co  —  «o 

CM  CO  r-  C.  CM  CO  GO  O". 
CO        T  9)  — 


O  <«• 

O  co 

t  -r 

O  t- 

CO  CM 


o  c  o  c  o 

CO  CO  O  o  O 


-i  h  to  o  h 
Is-  f  X 


c  CM  Ob  CO  OS       c  o  c 

^-  cm  85  c  «3  -r  co  go  A 
cri      r.  p- 


cm  — < 
I-  CO 

o  o 

cm 


T3 

S 

S3 


S3 
c 


c/5 


o  o 
o  o 


c  o 

05  — 


o  g 
c  c 


c  o  o  o  o 

o  o  c  o  c 

o  o  o  o  o 

CM  cm 


o  o 

o  o 

0  o 

01  co 


c  o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o  o 


V5  MO  t  h 
—  t  GO  CO 


1» 


oooococoo 
ooooooooo 

TfCOOO»0»00»Ot>- 
CO  CM  T  OJ  03  CN»  CO  OQ  ~. 

co      -r  c>  — « 


o  o 
o  o 

CM  O 

cm 


CD  ~ 

bo  u 
^  ° 

Cv  o 

sf 

31 

UO  QC 


c 
c 

42 

O 

§  § 

°  J* 
~  t: 

2  ° 

s  £ 
'%  5 

°  g  «« 

.5  f->  5 
£  2  S 

0)  ^  < 


c 

CD 

ESq 


c 

Q 

— 


CO 


CD 


CO 

3-8  o 

7T         C/T  CO  1 

«  3 

o  e  .£  .5  o 

^  °  CO  CO  ~ 

*j  ;t3 

CD    CD    CD    CD  > 

.CD  .CD  .3)  ^ 


o 

c  es 

-3  O 

_i  o 

5  £ 


Q 

o 

o 

ccJ  W 


CD  CO 


CO  r- 

M 

K  CO 

CD  CD 

"73  co 

« 8 


-03 

«o 


^  ^  l>  GO  CO 

co" 

CO  CD 
CD  CO 

fl,   O   C  O 

=  c 
co  -a 


£  I 

CD  CD 

o  fo 

CD 

nJ  CD 

7=.  > 


CS  CD 

**  -a 

—  CM  <—  CM  ^  t/2 


i:  cd 
CD  rt 

Clfi  CO 


O  P3 


o  o 

O  ^3 

^  GO 

CD 

r-  C3 

O  « 

C3  rjT 


-  CO 
CD  — 

CD  CD 

CO  ^ 

^  CO 


a: 
bifl 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


Ill 


OCOCOOICOOOOXOCOOO 
OOOCOCiiOOOOTfOOOOO 

OONOM0C0OOt0-«0;iCO 
OCOCOhTfOjHtoOGOOoi  rr  co 
OI  Oi  Oi        UO  CO  0<  i-i 


O  O  O  T 

O  O  O  CO 

o  o  o  c 

CO  U")  C  O 

T  h  h  CO 


o  o  o  x  o  o 

o  o  oi  o  o  o 

o  o  >o  o  o  ©*  co 

CO  C  OO  CM  OO  CO  ~* 

J— t  I— «  I— I 


^—•OO^Ot>OOOOOC 
COOCOTrtOOOOOOOOCO 


o;  co  vo  h  O  ?(  h  c  n  co  c? 

h  CO  O)         CO  CO  CM 


uo  sO 


o  o  o  o 

o  *>  c  »o 

i>  oo  co 

O  o  c:  <0 

t  «  CO 


o  o  *o  o  co  o  o 

O  O  CO  O  *0  CO  O 

©I  00  co  »o  CO  00 

o  oo  «o  oi  oo  co  -« 


ViOhOOOnhCOCOOOOOT 
CT>C500COC0^fOl>t^OOCOC0 

VOOOiO— 'COC^t^rrOOCM  CO 
H  CO  CO  H  h  »o  oi  <-> 


co  c<  io-  <r 

CO  CO  c. 

-<  i>  co  *o 

*0  ^  l>  C> 

o*  >■+  co 


CO  IO 
CO  CO 


O  Oi  O  i> 
O  O  CO  O 


h  X  00  O  iO  ifl  1* 
»o  J>  00  Oi  o  <o  Oi 
Oi       Oi  ^  — . 


oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooo 


o  oo  »o  o  o  o 

0  X  *0  CO  T  CO  CI 

01  Ci  oi  »o 


c  o 

«o  o  o  -r  oi  io  o 

CO  Oi  Oi  Oi  p-  T  CO 

CO    CO  r- 


o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

«o  o  o  o 

oo  *o  O  co 

CO  i— '  i-^  C-i 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

«o  o  o  o  o  »o  o 

OO  O  CO'  OI  OO  CO  Oi 

CO    H    H  H 


oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 

oir^coooiioooococo^-oo»oio 

0  CO  'O  t>  o  o>  >- 1  CO  CO  CO  OI        ^  t*» 

01  OI  Oi  ^  «»  — 


CO  Oi 


o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

CO  00  — '  00 

CO  rf  o  CO 

CO  ^  —  CI 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

CO  h  OO  00  OO  o  CO 

CO  O  O  CO  CO  CO 

CO  fi  Oi 


CO 
T3 


co  £3 
cu 

•§  » 

J±  ^  *J 

P<u  ,cd 

03  %_ 

■M    «0  ^ 


^>  o 

15  ^3  *> 


CO 

o 
c 


co  co  r/r 

CD    CD  5 


cu  S  £  ^ 


<OS  o  o 


CD  ^ 

^3  cj       co  w 

<»  _2 
^  o  c  9 


-  a  8  o 

.£  .5 

CO  CO  I-  £ 

,cd  „cd  co  r4 

^  CO  ^  ^ 
+2  CC 


o 

_50  O 
O     K  K> 


■  5 


I  CD 

CO 

rt 

o 
o 

I"? 

o  ^ 
COD— 

?r  co 
>  ^ 
g  & 

5  a 


01 


o 


cu 

^3 


2  w   «  £ 
CU  CD 


.2  ,a  o 


^  oo  co  a 

CD  ■*-»  •«-> 

CD   CD  CD  CO 

CO  ***  CD 

r-t   O  CO  .CU 


CO 


_^  CC 

*5  CD 

2  o  o  -a 

CD  ^O 


o 


0 


O 

2  s 

CD 


CO 

CD 

1 

■a 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CL 

oT 

as 

CO 

CD 

»■> 

£3 

CO 

CL  T3         O  . 

COD  ^  O 

i-t   H   CO  H   r»  H 


CO 
CD 

CD 

S3 


CD  CD 


co  oo 


«— •  f-«  C| 


112 


Rep.  No.  1065. 


00 
S9 


O  00  O  O  to 
o  t  o  oo  «o 


o  o  o 

CO  CI  X 


0>  r» 
0»  T 


o  o 
o  o 


o  o 


O  X  O  O  O)  "t  N  O 
OC0C0O>O!OOO 

COtOCCWCT'O 

©  <o  oo      co  <©  —  tt 

«  «  W  N        CO  W 


O  O  O  C  O 
O  V3  ©  ©  © 


O  *0  OS  *C  o» 
r  co  >o  o  t 


o  o 
o  o 


O  Oi 


O— ■'TOOOOO 
O  MO  O  '/J  «0  O  O 

OOCOflOOOOlCHO 

h  »o  (o  to  o  n  to  v 

X  N  CO  N  N  ?l  h 


S9 


-r  c»  o  cm 
c  o  o  *o  io 


f  >C  C  CO  CO 
X  C  (C  -  (O 


I-  o 
r-  O 


—  o 

CO  CI 


C)h->OCOXiTftO 
h  CO  C  O  Co  ffi  CO  O 

ojtcococr.  incco 
o»ocoocociC"r 

VO  CO  CO  CO  0*  CO  CO 


o 
o 

o 
o 

s 


C  C  O  C  O 

o  o  o  o  c 


o  o  o  o  o 

»o  c  »o  CO  f 


o  © 
c  o 


c  o 

uo  O 


oooococo 
coooooco 

©lOiOOOOO"*) 
OiOCOOMOCOf 
to  w  CX  CO  ^  i-t 


1—1 

39t 


O  o  o  o  o 
©  ©  ©  o  o 


O)  Ci  o  *o  (C 
co  co  io  i>  -r 


o  o 
o  o 


o  o 

iO  o 


oooooooo 
oooooooo 

OCO^iOtCO^O 

Oxcocotocoof 

tC  O  N  Ol  h  N 


2  ft? 


GO 

M 
o 
o 

43 


cd 

«2» 

OS 

><r  *j  8 

_D  GO 
^-    GO  CP 


CO  J£  O  0& 

-2  GO  CJ 
H   p(   It   H  W 


Si 


60 

S-  I 

O 

o 
-3 

CO 

tB  i 
s 

o 


ft  s 


1 


o 

60 

m 
c 

o 


to 

l| 

CD  "3" 

fCD  ~ 

^  GO 

cd 
o 

GO 

go  o 

as  o 

O  ^ 


CD 

G 
3 

EO 
CD 


GO 

CD 

d 


<     2  " 


GO 

.CD  ,CD  .CD  ^ 


CS  l> 


CD  S 
S3  c3 


_  GO 
~  CD 

-  - 

£  o  o  ^  '> 


o 


OJ  CO  CO  o*  0)  01  CJ 


Hep.  No.  1065, 


o 


> 

o 
o 

d 


73 
03 

CO 

o 
o 

■ ! 


o 

03  • 


GO 

03  o 

3  g 


32 

of  ^ 
a  S  ° 

-  -  W 


ll  , 

J-  * 

CS   «  03 

7  as  o 

0  oo  co 

K   O  o 

1  if 

£  ^  2 

=  5 


o 

i 

o 

CO 

O 

eS  1 

f-H 

03 

CO 

2  J33 

ro  CS 

t>D«- 
q  is 


CO 

03 

8  r  ° 

e 

3   S  w 

03  03  H3 

03  CO  C 

CO  03  £ 

ctf  co  n 

°  — 

o  ° 
O  O  C 

£.§1 

Jj>  CD  J 
V-i    r->  CO 

-  «»•?  £ 
a  co  >■  y 

rf   *  ©  bL 
O  < 


w 

© 

© 

o 

Q 

01 

o 

o 

3 

o 

O 

o  o 

o 

O 

o 

Ci 

r- 

CO 

CO 

00  to 

to 

CO 

00 

Tt4 

CM 

GO 

rf  Ci 

00 

CO 

"""is 

CM 

-H  CM 

t> 

CM 

CO 

O 

o 

o 

© 

O  O 

o 

o 

CM 

— > 

© 

Q 

Ci 

t> 

f_p 

CO 

00  to 

00 

CO 

Ci 

CM 

00 

Ci 

CM 

cm 

CO 

l-H^  Ci^ 

p-T  of 

cm 

O 

o 

C 

o 

© 

o  o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

U I 

o 

o  o 

© 

o 

in 

Ci 

t  «■ 

CO 

CO 

X  to 

00 

CO 

Ci 

CM 

so 

Ci 

CM 

to 

CO 

F-^  Ci 

Ci 

l-H  Of 

co" 

CM 

o 

c 

— — 

o 

/— s 

o 

O 

o 

to 

— • 

1 

1 

1  i 

1 

1 

©" 

CM 

o 

o 

Q 

o 

o 

o  o 

c 

O 

o 

© 

o 

o 

o 

© 

o  o 

© 

© 

o 

Ci 

CO 

CO 

00  tO 

00 

1^ 

CM 

oo 

Ci 

CM 

<* 

CO 

CO 

***  °^ 

Ci 

r-T  of 

to" 

CM 

2^  g> 

03 

*  -  fi 
cu   g  ^> 

•3  -3  g 

5    03  1= 


03  > 


™  c  13 


r-  03 

lis 

3  ®  S 

P    CO  w 


£3  O 


|    A  « 
,5  03 

|  II 

—  C  N 
03  'B« 

^  CD 

CO 

o  on 
.2  co  r-i 

03 

2  ^  £ 

C3  in^ 

o  o  o 

03  '§  ^ 
03    ^  O 

03  fl 

3  S'  o  . 

o  ^  c 


.  g  co  w. 

•~  o  co 

CO  j  S  * 

H'»  cp  S 

^  ^  ^ 

to   Ow  t 

«  'C  ^ 

CS  o  . 

03   >-  O 

5-1      3  ^ 

I  7, 

'   cu  g  a 

w  £  *  -S 

§^  S 

^  S  S.2 


114 


Kep.  No.  1065. 


June  6,  1842. 

I  certify  that  I  have  carefully  examined  the  furniture  now  in  the  New  York 
custom-house,  piece  by  piece,  have  taken  the  dimensions,  and  carefully 
calculated  the  fair  value  and  prices  of  the  same,  and  have  given  my  esti- 
mate in  the  second  column  of  the  foregoing  statement.  The  job  has  been 
performed  in  the  most  perfect  and  excellent  manner,  in  point  of  materials 
and  workmanship.  I  have  been  engaged  in  business,  as  a  cabinet  maker, 
for  the  last  17  years,  in  this  city. 

The  foregoing  examination  was  made  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Curtis  ;  but 
I  have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  him  or  with  Mr.  Storm. 

WILLIAM  WALLACE, 

No.  170  Fulton  street. 

Mr.  Wallace  refers  to  Charles  A.  Boudouine,  Joseph  Hoxie,  William  S. 
Coe,  (late  naval  officer,)  Gilbert  Chichester,  John  Delamater,  E.  Bonnell  & 
Co.,  and  Scott  &  Clarke,  in  respect  to  his  character  and  standing. 


June  25,  1842. 

I  do  hereby  certify  that,  at  the  request  of  Abraham  Storm,  I  have  care- 
fully examined  the  furniture  in  the  New  York  custom  house,  piece  by 
piece,  have  taken  the  dimensions  of  each  article,  and  calculated  the  fair 
value  and  prices  of  the  same,  without  seeing  the  hills  of  prices  of  Mr.  Storm, 
and  without  any  knowledge  of  or  reference  to  his  prices;  that  the  prices 
fixed  by  me  are  stated  in  the  second  (third)  column,  as  above;  and  I  do 
declare  that  the  prices  fixed  by  me  are  just  and  reasonable,  and  no  more 
than  a  reasonable  compensation,  according  to  my  best  judgment.  And  I 
further  declare  that  the  work  has  been  done  by  Mr.  Storm  in  the  most  per- 
fect manner,  and  of  the  best  materials. 

MATTHEW  KING. 
JOHN  L.  FENDALL. 
THOMAS  WILLIAMS. 


New  York,  July  1,  1842. 
We,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  we  are  personally  acquainted  with  John 
L.  Fendall,  Matthew  King,  and  Thomas  Williams,  cabinet  makers,  who 
have  examined  and  appraised  the  furniture  specified  in  the  annexed  sche- 
dule ;  that  they  are  men  of  great  personal  respectability,  belong  to  the  first 
class  of  cabinet  furniture  manufacturers  in  the  city  of  New  York ;  and  en- 
tire reliance  mav  be  placed  upon  their  statements. 

WILLIAM  B.  SHIPMAN, 
Cabinet  maker,  No.  544  Broadway. 
B.  DEMING, 

•ds  to  Williams  and  Fendall. 
MILLER  &  CAMPBELL, 
Cabinet  makers,  No.  44  Broadway. 
WILLIAM  MANDEVILLE, 
No.  62  Charles  street. 
JOHN  HORSPOOL, 

No.  16  White  street. 
D.  PHYFE, 

No.  194  Fulton  street. 


Rep  No  1065,?   Statement  exhibiting;  the  emoluments  and  expenditures  of  the  Collectors  of  the  district  ol  \<  n  York,  from  the  1-f  July,  1822,  to  the  31st  December,  1840, 

Vugr  |I5,  5 


Cnltwlora. 

iil 

m 

b|1. 
Jill 

2 

11 

H 

F..F, 

li 
jy 

Fee.. 

Conimiaaiona  on 

Fee.  for  certifi- 

The  Tica.uiy, 

Tolal. 

(  Irrk  hue. 

Stationery. 

Kfnl,  lull. 

Coni|ianiatum 

Total 

enui'.ttd  for. 

Ugbt-booac 

oN^iril  -,  A  ■ 

propria!  Ion. 

Jonilhan  Th'.inp.on 

Do 
Do 

Sam  rlwool 

Do 

Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 

Do 

iff 

Do 

3.1  nn.l  llh  rjUartCN  18:2 

Whole  year  ins 

Do  1824 

Do  1885 

Do  1828 

Do  1827 

Do  1828 
It)  January  lo  30th  Ap.il.  ISM 
i.i  May  l*81al  Daoaraber,  1889 

W  hole  vea,  18.1(1 
Do  1831 
Do  1833 
Do  1833 
Do  1834 
Do  1835 

Do         1837       '-  - 
t.t  January  lo  28|h  Marrll.  183S 
ISlll  March  lo  31.1  Drc  ,  1838 

Wknlt  Ma  1639 
Do  1840 

•#3.853  14 
7,987  58 
8,116  74 
7,088  53 
7,980  84 

10,089  f.o 
2,797  90 
609  37 

1,524  43 
1,390  II 
1,30)  54 
1,242  88 
1,7114  25 
1,764  25 

#7,997  58 
9,168  77 
7.042  00 
8,005  .111 

111,190  57 
2,776  18 

:..iH8  *t 
11,634  60 
18,683  12 
25,150  97 
24,677  31 
02, fill  36 
19,207  III 
21,1 15  23 
25,344  75 
18.069  '-'9 

3,239  99 
13,632  PI 
22,756  48 
16,254  41 

f7,520  87 

2:i]ri5l  56 
16,131  33 

667  25 
2,484  40 
1,103  38 

161  28 
161  04 
161  16 

$962  86 

3^863  76 
s)*«  ■■- 
'572  80 
4, 705  38 

377  82 
578  04 

9,629  03 
30,894  42 

60,997  60 

(18,894  75 

#18,373  03 
32,412  13 
31,867  82 
43,790  37 
46.882  98 
40,189  60 
II.  "21  41. 
14,171  25 
28,633  85 
45,627  78 
58,899  99 
64,991  8| 
59,630  20 
73,263  87 

82)262  94 
32,698  52 
17,835  21 
62,860  69 
95,926  37 
93,961  92 

#7,325  00 
17,331  37 
18,912  3(1 
26,131  42 
28,999  01 
39,247  26 
28,899  84 
8,133  00 
21,487  04 
35,685  66 
48,328  46 
52, 1.1, 9  88 

63)877  67 
62,245  76 
70,204  8(1 
61,863  65 
16,253  19 
63,851  26 
82,210  26 
81,448  77 

#921  06 
2,166  80 
1,736  95 
2,239  29 
2,126  10 

'76O  92 
2,3118  61 
3,935  83 
6,111  69 

9)026  81 
5,070  67 
4,603  69 
6,012  92 
6,497  01 
1,083  35 

T.S87  46 
6,892  69 

»37  78 
399  33 
2,(117  93 

'(11(1  78 
1,al3  18 

00  87 
396  41 

lilt?  4:1 

1,197  73 
llli.'i  63 

1)001  23 

'l3ll  44 
1,919  94 
1,08(4  95 
1,3.10  58 

 >  1111 

onn  on 

000  00 
000  00 

nun  on 
linn  nil 

(Hill  1)11 
1.1,6  6/ 

lino  mi 
nnn  no 
0110  nil 

noil  nil 
nnn  on 
.0(10  on 
,0110  (HI 

066  116 
033  88 
nun  00 
mm  on 

#300  00 
400  00 
4110  00 

mil  on 
100  00 

400  00 

360  06 
400  00 
11111  00 
400  00 
400  00 
400  00 
400  00 
400  00 
983  49 
09  87 
303  39 
400  00 
400  00 

#10,381  41 
21.896  39 

27,726  211 

88,888  no 

36,171  92 
37,387  70 
811,888  90 

HI   H6 

27,109  48 
45,768  10 
68,087  68 
(..'.,050  50 

73)303  97 
73,823  46 
83,262  91 
73,230  16 
17,935  21 
62,811(1  69 
'16,926  117 

#7,997  58 
8,115  74 
7,066  63 
(.96(1  81 

111,(180  6(1 

7',609  37 
3,717  63 
1,631  43 

1.300  II 

1.301  61 
1,212  99 

l.TSI  35 

"  Surplua  accruing  .lurillR  the  Ut  and  2J  .inaiter*  ol  1622. 

T.  I,.  sMlTIf,  Btgliitr. 

Tar  anprv  Prr  xRTMr.M-,  Rioistek's  OrriCE,  June  21,  1842. 


Note.— The  above  statement  commences  with  the  period  at  which  the  collectors'  emolument  accounts  were  rendered  to  this  otliee.  The  expenses,  as  authorized  by  the  act  of  2d  March,  1710,  have  always  hecn  paid  out  ol  the  fees  and 
emolument. 


izx  Htbrta 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


